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 18th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
greg, they relied on God to provide for their needs.
He did that by having rich supporters keeping them well. They had a reasonable standard of living. They certainly were not on the poverty line.
Jesus needed Disciples to spread the word. They had to understnd the importance of that but there is no directive to give all the money we are stewards away.
To put a modern context George Muller had the same Faith in God providing for him and he too although by no means a rich man had a reasonable standard of living.
October 18th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
I am sure they had their daily bread.
rev
October 18th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
but they did not live on bread alone !!!!
October 18th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
So Homer, how the hell do you get that out of the verse that says very specifically Lord we have left everything and followed you? And that in response to Jesus asking someone to sell everything and give it to the poor. Contextually you are so reading your bias into it. They had a couple of single women that contributed to their support, how you possible get that they had plenty is way beyond me, it is absolute speculation. Then Jesus tells the apostles when he sends them out not to take any money or even an extra coat with them. You really have no leg to stand on here, you are just making this shit up.
rev
October 19th, 2006 at 5:35 am
For discussionsake
Luke 18:18-30
18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. 20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. 21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. 22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich. 24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. 26 And they that heard it said, Who then can be saved? 27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God. 28 Then Peter said, Lo, we have left all, and followed thee. 29 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, 30 Who shall not receive manifold more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting.
October 19th, 2006 at 6:03 am
REV - here is my take on this, since you asked.
#1.”he said unto him,” from v22 - Jesus did not say to everyone, nor did he say this is a KINGDOM Truth - to be MY follower everyone has to sell all - everthing they have. He is speaking specifically to one person who is boasting about his ability to keep the law
**** also note this man is asking what to do to be saved - not enter the KINGDOM - If as you said earlier that to be a Kingdom person you have to not hold possesions then this scripture is not relevant to the argument, and the argument about Kingdom vs saved theology is a moot point here, becasue it is about being saved.
Jesus is also saying here - put your trust in me and you will see that you will not lack. There is a higher realm of provision called BLESSING. Blessing will get you money from a fishes mouth when you need it. Blessing will cause you to make little come to much - like feeding 5000 with 2 fish and 5 loaves - with only a few basketfulls left over.
#2. This is not about money - it is about the Love of money. The man is saying I do the Law Jesus - so what else would you require of ME. So Jesus hits him in HIS weak spot. HIS love of MONEY - not so much his possession of it, but that he loves God but he loves money more. Jesus says to HIM - sell all YOU have.
#3. How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! - NOT THEY CANNOT ENTER WITHOUT GIVING IT ALL UP He says it’s HARDER, especially to TRUST God whom you cannot see when you trust in riches that you DO see. It is harder to see the benefit of being blessed - when all you see is YOUR money providing for you.
Rev, I think of you here. If YOU had a buget of $50,000 a month - would you be trusting God. Heaven NO! You would trust your budget. Would you see the hand of God as much - if all you saw was the provision in your hand. Heaven NO. Therfore the rich young ruler could be pitied - not condemned. he chose a way of trusting in his own self sufficiency and missed experiencing God make a way for Him. It was HIS loss to choose this.
#4. The disciple ask - who can be saved then **** They are NOT asking about entering the KINGDOM - this is a salvation thing. His answer is simple. With God, even the Rich man is Loved and can be brought into salvation, Becasue even though it is hard… the BLOD will work for them too.
#5. Th disciple make a point to say _ WE ARE GIVING OUR ALL. And Jesus gives them this ” There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God’s sake, Who shall not receive manifold MORE in this PRESENT TIME , and in the world to come life everlasting.
So summing up. If you are going to follow Jesus, you cannot LOVE money MORE than you love God. (better to tithe and go to heaven
)
People who trust God (like You do) SEE GOD DO WONDERS AND KNOW WHAT IT IS TO LIVE IN THE PROVISION OF GOD’S BLESSING THEM WITHOUT RELYING ON WORLDLY RICHES AS THE UNBELIEVERS HAVE TO.
Jesus said we would recieve MORE in THIS PRESENT AGE by choosing to be in God’s economy of blessing - which was demonstrated by Jesus. Even Phillip used the “Blessing economy of God” to provide rapid transit.
Finally - Rich people can be saved not because they give it all away but because Jesus blood is good enough for them.
October 19th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Your last sentence is true. Your next to last sentence is true, but not in the way you mean it. How can a man have more families, and do you really thing if you follow Jesus you will have more houses? It obviously means that when you enter the kingdom, you are part of a larger family that practices hospitality and care for each other, there is no other sensical way to look at that.
The man asks Jesus, how can I be saved, now Jesus tells him to keep the commandments. Are we saved by keeping the commandments? No! Then why did Jesus tell the man this? Because he was a Jew, and was called to keep the law. When the man told him, I have done this since I was a boy, one of the other gospels says, Jesus looked at him and love him. So, the very obvious thought to me is the man asks Jesus a typical question, Jesus answers, but then seeing the man was seriously looking for fulfillment, Jesus tells him what he must do to “perfectly follow God” and this man that Jesus loved cannot do it. But Jesus did not ask him to change his attitude towards money, he asked him to sell it all, and give it to the poor. And to spend his life following Jesus. This man was invited to become an apostle. The only person the gospels tell us was invited but declined is this man!
Now then Jesus says, “how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom” It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” Now if you say this is hyperbole, (an exageration to provide emphaisis) I will accept that as a legitimate interpretation. But then what does he mean by this saying? It is very very hard correct? And in this mans case what was necessary for him to do so? To sell all he had, and leave it. All of it! So, is it really that hard? I believe it is, just like Jesus said.
Now please tell me you can see that this doesn’t make any sense at all if Jesus statement about with God anything is possible is meant to say, “Its impossible for anyone to enter the kingdom of heaven but with God all things are possible”. That makes absolutely no sense to Jesus’ original statement. Jesus is not saying, well really it is just as hard for everyone to enter the kingdom of heaven I just said the rich thing cause I like to mess with the rich dudes.
Now Peter realizes that this is a very major point, (no doubt they all do because this story winds up in three gospels), and says but we did what this man could not do. In other words, this thing that is so hard, we did it. And Jesus explains, that they have entered into the kingdom. They will now have homes wherever they go, and families wherever they go, and the goods of all in the kingdom shall be theirs and this will also bring tribulation. And they will wind up with an eternity of heaven.
Now if this was only important to the rich young ruler, why did three of the gospel writers include it for all of us to wrestle with? If it only mattered to the rich young ruler why does Jesus’ apostles recognize that this is what they were called to do as well? If this is just for this one man why do we see the early church doing the same thing? If this was just for this man why does Jesus say in another place, “trust God little children, He wants to give you the kingdom, sell all you have give to the poor and provide purses for yourselves that do not run out, a treasure in heaven where the thieves and moths cannot get to it, for where you treasure is there your heart will be also” He said this to his disciples in front of a huge crowd of thousands. Jesus also tells the crowd the weeds of decetiful riches chokes out the word. He tells them not to worry about their lives, their clothes their food. He tells the crowds that in order to save their life they must lose it and to lose it they will find it. He tells the crowds in Luke that blessed are the poor, and woe unto the rich.
this is not something that the apsostles show any inclination, was only for one man, but a life priniciple for all who would seek to live in Gods kingdom values on earth.
rev
October 19th, 2006 at 9:54 am
I am at a loss that you cannot see it isn’t the love of money.
The young ruler was no different to most Jews of the time ( and our time for that measure) in thinking he fulfilled all the commandments.
He didn’t and couldn’t because his Heart and therefore God was with his money.
You do not need to have a honours degree in accounting and finance to understand if everyone sold their assets in the early church they would at some stage run out of money.
October 19th, 2006 at 10:03 am
money is a strange thing.. we werent meant to have money - it is a human construction designed to deal with our relationships with each other separate from God.
God designed us to share his creation but in our rebellion we want to own his creation and be master of it ourselves and money helps us do that.
Money is not a neutral thing… it is more powerful than sex,power, material things, position, fame etc because money offers them all… good things can be done with money of course but as humans we are (in our natural state of rebellion) unable to do the right thing with it separate from God’s grace… it is only ever through Gods grace that i will ever do any good with what i have.
October 19th, 2006 at 10:12 am
No abtruth money is the most efficient way to have transactions.
It is far superior to barter. Love of money is the love of what it can buy. without money you simply have a love of whatever possessions you have which can lead to more possessions.
October 19th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Then why didn’t Jesus confront his obvious inability to keep the commandments Homer? Selling everything and giving it to the poor isn’t one of the commandments. And he obviously wasn’t covetting his neighborrs goods he had his own. And can you tell me where Jesus says in that story that it was only the love of money that was the problem? Why did Peter justify themselves if it was only the love of money that was the problem?
And Homer, are you telling me that modern accounting is more appropriate to steer our lives than the direct teachings of scripture?
rev
October 19th, 2006 at 10:24 am
rev,
Jesus told the young ruler he WASN”T keeping the commandments in a very simple way.
The Young ruler was very sad because he could not give them up.
No nut modern accounting can help us understnd the bible sometimes and not make basic mistakes such as believing everyone sold their possessions!
October 19th, 2006 at 10:33 am
barter?? i could not think of a more inefficient way
money is a liar… if i believed in personal demons out there the most powerful one would be named money
October 19th, 2006 at 11:30 am
This has been a good discussion. Rev I have appreciated your radical (at least radical in our consumeristic society) stand that you take, and have appreciated your thought process and passionate desire to follow Jesus. This is all very timely for me as I am in a place of trying to reconsider my working and financial future after finishing up as a pastor.
Here are my thoughts at this point in time to add to the discussion….
There are three main questions that I ask of myself when it comes to money:
1. Is the pursuit of money driving me and the decisions I make? (In otherwords, am I dictated by money or the call of God on my life?)
2. Am I consistently seeking to be generous toward others? (This is about whether we store up for ourselves or live simply and are generous with the rest)
3. How am I stewarding what I do possess? (Am I possessive about my possessions (e.g. house, car, lawn mower, etc…) or do I see myself as the manager or steward of them?)
Now when it comes to practicalities, people can tend to want to draw lines in the sand and say it’s OK to do this, but not this. For example, is it OK to earn a living? Is it OK to earn a wealthy living? Is it OK to own a house? What about my windsurfer, should I sell this and give the money away? Should I start my own business as a way of earning a living knowing that it will take a huge amount of time and energy - especially during the start-up phase? Is this pursuing money too much? Should I give generously and sacrificially and put my family under financial pressure?
These are tough questions, and ones that I continually grapple with. What does being an authentic follower of Jesus mean in the practicalities of my life - because at the end of the day, I want to authentically follow Jesus - not matter the cost……
October 25th, 2006 at 11:21 am
reminds me of that old hymn-
“10% I give to Jesus,
10% I freely give
I surrender 10%
I surrender 10%
10% I give to jesus
10% I give..”
Uh Oh I think I just started a tithing ruckus again…
November 6th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
Mark Driscoll does a Sheikh Al Hilaly.
From http://www.theresurgence.com/md_blog_2006-11-03_evangelical_leader_quits
“Most pastors I know do not have satisfying, free, sexual conversations and liberties with their wives. At the risk of being even more widely despised than I currently am, I will lean over the plate and take one for the team on this. It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.”
November 6th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
what a dickhead!
rev
November 6th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Absolute idiot and now oficially even more despised than he was before
November 7th, 2006 at 10:06 am
what a complete *insert expletive*
“take one for the team” indeed…mark, if you cop it for that comment, it’s because you’re being a wanker, not a prophet.
November 7th, 2006 at 10:20 am
I just read that post again, and now I’m absolutely fuming. Read his “tips” for how to avoid sexual immorality, and consider how many of those “tips” effectively blame OTHER PEOPLE for a pastor’s transgressions!!
November 7th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
I have a tip for all the guys out there, keep your dick in your pants unless you are in bed with your wife, or in the shower, or using the toilet, or maybe in back seat of the car when you and your wife go to the drive in on valentines day!
sometimes I think I shouldn’t type
rev
November 7th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
just a quick question, is it ok to pull it out just to give it some air, or to show it of to some mates?
November 8th, 2006 at 6:05 am
you got problems
rev
November 8th, 2006 at 10:39 am
Only at the ARIAs, greg.
FWIW while Driscoll is a tool, not everything that he says in that checklist is rubbish. In fact, a lot of his comments reproduce the advice that is given to many ministers in avoiding situations where such misunderstandings can occur (eg meeting with people while others are in the office, not being in the office late at night for counselling etc).
Particularly in these troubled times many people actually have limited experiences of true non-sexual intimacy, or are unable to express or experience intimacy without sexualising it. Ministry provides lots of situations of non-sexual intimacy which can be misunderstood or misread by others.
However, I love the idea of pastors’ wives whose only motivation towards true sexual intimacy is so that their husbands would be faithful. Once they have that assumption of fidelity, they just lose interest.
November 8th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Dan,
My problem is, in some respects, with the stuff that list fails to include, rather than what it does. I mean where in this list does it make it clear that the person MOST responsible for a pastor’s transgressions is, first and foremost, him/herself?
November 8th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I guess that the point of most of those lists are that they are addressed to people who are not sleazes. Nothing on that list is going to stop a situation which is of the sort that Haggard created - because he was clearly choosing to do things which he knew were wrong.
So a list like that (or an instruction at a ministry college or similar) is only going to be effective for those people who basically want to avoid misconduct anyway. The only thing on that list which could conceivably have made a difference to Ted Haggard was the one about being honest with your spouse, and who knows, he might have been. Nothing there per se is going to stop someone having meth-fuelled sex binges with a male prostitute.
I agree with you about responsibility lying with the pastor, but the grey area on misconduct issues is *huge* which is where I think a bunch of these sorts of guides come from. For example (which is getting way off the topic of what we were discussing), if the ministerial conduct guidelines which currently apply to our denomination had been in place ten years ago, Phil would have been in breach of it for going out with me.
Basically, I think that Driscoll holds a lot of fairly mainstream views and then tops it off with a smear of pure crap which seems designed to get a reaction.
November 8th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
“I agree with you about responsibility lying with the pastor, but the grey area on misconduct issues is *huge* which is where I think a bunch of these sorts of guides come from.”
Dan, I couldn’t agree with you more. Perhaps we can have a rant in real life and off-line some time!!
November 8th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Absoloodle.
November 8th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I do have problems rev - but I am seeking wise and Godly counsel from a bloke who’’s read some of James Dobsons stuff, so he’ll be able to direct me in the paths in which I should follow.
Just a point of clarification: If Mark Driscoll is a tool - whose pants should he be kept in?
November 9th, 2006 at 4:29 am
??? ummmm well, maybe his wife’s
rev