Prosperity Theology vs Poverty Theology II
We have been discussing the merits (or lack thereof) of competing ideologies that Mark Driscoll has labelled “Half Truths”.
I came across this comparison that I thought makes some sense by comparing the two theologies with a ’stewardship’ theology.
Theological Perspectives on Money
By Patrick M. Morley
Many Christians suffer for lack of a theology of money. They don’t have a way of integrating their financial practices with their Christian commitments. But it is not enough just to have a theology of money; it is critical to have the right theology of money. In our day, there are a variety of theologies of money on offer, some better than others. These can be boiled down to three basic options: (1) poverty theology, (2) stewardship theology, and (3) prosperity theology. These three theologies are summarized in the table below. Each of the three theologies attempts to summarize the relevant biblical material, but in our opinion only one does so in a satisfactory way. Look over the table below, study what the Bible has to say, and decide for yourself whether stewardship theology is not the best representation of the biblical perspective.
|
October 17th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
(AKA tbokar)
Thank you Mr Morley. Biblical wisdom indeed. As in most things with God, balance wins again. Meanwhile, back to building the vineyard before night falls. Nice glass of red anyone?
October 17th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Lionfish,
Ahh at last. Stewardship is very close to my heart - infact my micro business is called Ecosteward. Mostly about Environmental Stewardship - I teach enviro ed. However enironment cannot be divorced from economics so I also include economic stewardship as part of my teaching resposibility. When talking to Christians I describe this as our right and proper response to God. In other words stewardship is as worship.
October 17th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Grace Required.
I agree. This concpet of balanced stewardship is what we were taught in the Lutheran Church while growing up.
October 18th, 2006 at 7:17 am
sounds like the whole stewardship thing is based on the mistranslation of the parable of the talents. Now I don’t mind part of the teaching, but the way it works in fact is people, being good stewards, make the most of their money and skim some of the cream off for the poor. They save heaps, and invest, and don’t rely on anyone. Which makes great sense, it just isn’t what Jesus taught. And it isn’t any different from what the world does, with the possible addition of a little charitable giving.
This teaching uses one parable, that is mistranslated, against all of the scriptures I have posted. I am awestruck that people that love the word so much cannot see the absolute inequality of interpretation going on here.
rev
October 18th, 2006 at 9:37 am
Rev,
Thats where we differ. The Parable of the talents is about whole of life stewardship - not just money.
The stewardship paradigm is balanced - its not aboutt ‘making the most of their money’. Its about using your life wisely, and ‘adding value’ to the kingdom where you can.
This has to be balanced, in light of other teachings - The Bigger Barns and admonishments against laziness.
October 18th, 2006 at 11:22 am
Agrre with Lionfish on parable of the talents and I am not a Lutheran!
October 18th, 2006 at 3:26 pm
Talents can be other things besides money, but it is still a completely backwards translation that drives the whole idea. The standard translation of that passage is completely wrong.
rev
October 18th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
“Recently, Time magazine explored the popularity of “prosperity theology,” a movement that goes by various other names, too: “word of faith,” “health and wealth” or “name it and claim it.”
I have more than a passing interest in this theology.
I hold it partly responsible for my wife’s death.”
From http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/living/religion/15728673.htm
October 18th, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Read an old book by Millard Fuller (the guy who started and was kicked out of Habitat for Humanity).
Now, he suggested that we all need to develop a theology of enough.
Couldn’t agree with him more, most Christians I know have no idea where or when to put the brakes on themselves.
I suppose thi is symtomatic of the way most live quite indivisualised lives, where decision are made largely in isolation, rather than done in such a way as to be opened up to community input.
October 19th, 2006 at 7:04 am
JONO
bout time you showed up!!! wheres that email?
I need to talk to you when you get back too.
rev
October 19th, 2006 at 9:56 am
Jon Owen - Good comment.
The “theology of enough” sits well within the balanced stewardship paradigm in my mind.
Rev - will contact soon. Real Bizzy for a week or two.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Lance - that story was horrific
my wife has a friend who’s kidneys were giving out but refused to get a transplant until he was given days to live because he thought God was going to heal him…. this guy still thinks he has the power of healing!
October 19th, 2006 at 10:11 am
stewardship says that we should make the most out of what we have, we should save up and not depend on others, that we should store up for ourselves, that we should take part in the injust world of finance and usuary, that we should join the economy that routinely sells out the poor and marginalize for material gain. I have spent time with the people in Mexico that work in the fields for absolutely shit wages, who are given one room fiberglass shacks with dirt floors to live in, and who children cannot get an education because they too must work in the fields. And this organization loves their workers so much that they spray pesticides on the crops even when they are working in them. All so the tomatoes offered to the american middle class can make them as much profit as possible. The stewardship doctrine says to be a part of that disgusting process.
So what does the Stewardship doctrine of enough mean? What does enough mean in a world that thinks a second television is a necessity? What does it mean in a world that spends billions of dollars on bottled water, while much of the world is actually dying from lack of clean drinking water? What does enough mean when we are surrounded by advertising that tells us we need that aussie dream house, and ofcourse we need a car, and we desrve a break today at mcdonalds.
How are we being salt and light to the world when we consume the same way they do, but call it a blessing? How are we being salt and light in the world when we just scrape a little bit off the top and give it to the poor, but keep saving up money so we can have a nice house, in a nice community, with a nice wage when we retire?
I think the stewardship doctrine is a numbing lie that makes God bless our protestand work ethic rather than actually following the kingdom of heaven and the example of Jesus and the apostles.
rev
October 19th, 2006 at 10:36 am
you sound like a christian chomsky rev
lets start our own anarcho-syndicalist revolution
October 19th, 2006 at 10:58 am
Rev, are you referring to a specific ideology that’s labelled “stewardship”, or are you referring to stewardship more generally? Because if it’s the latter, I’m afraid I have to disagree, and I think it’s culturally biased…lots of cultures have notions of stewardship (particularly of the land) and it’s rooted in the idea that we don’t ‘own’ things but are granted them by God (or gods) and merely hold them on trust for future generations…but I think you’re talking about a specific doctrine, not the general notion of stewardship, right??
October 19th, 2006 at 11:48 am
yes I am talking about the christian doctrine of stewardship which serves to validate the desire to pour the lions share of their efforts into making ourselves economically comfortable.
Abtruth, thank you very much for that compliment. And I am an anarchist already, infact I am right now trying to put together a staff to produce a Christian anarchist magazine.
rev
October 19th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
put me down for a subscription rev
October 19th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
I have never read that about stewardship.
I do not see any biblical evidence to be so silly with money you have to rely on the Government to live in old age or indeed any age.
we are all stewards for god when it comes to money. We can love what money brings or God not both.
in other words it is intent
Poverty theology is as idiotic as prosperity theology.
October 19th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
oh, cool…’cos I think the notion of stewardship - in the sense of understanding that we are given things by God, and that we hold those things on trust for future generations - is a very helpful one…especially in the context of what seems to be impending ecological crisis.
Put me down for a subscription too.
October 19th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
I think I have quoted this before
Proverbs 30
7 “Two things I ask of you, O LORD;
do not refuse me before I die:
8 Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread.
9 Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
and say, ‘Who is the LORD ?’
Or I may become poor and steal,
and so dishonor the name of my God.
No Poverty No Riches be honset about what you have and what you do with it. Enough is enough let God use the rest. Sums up the idea of Christian Stewardship for me.
Bec said
notions of stewardship (particularly of the land) and it’s rooted in the idea that we don’t ‘own’ things but are granted them by God (or gods) and merely hold them on trust for future generations…
I meet this idea in environmental circles all the time. Very Gaia. It all comes down to motives - I chose to steward what God gives me because I believe in Jesus and the God of the Bible who calls us to care for his creation and everything in it. And not only this but tell of His creation and saving grace using every good gift - money, skill, talent, prayer - whatsoever is given to me.
October 19th, 2006 at 10:37 pm
Rev, did you see this one? Those damn Baptist ministers.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_turn_on_the_lights/
Bolt’s clearly got his facts wrong again though - Brent’s not a cleric, he’s not ordained…yet.
October 19th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Bolt is a moron it seems.
rev
October 20th, 2006 at 9:27 am
if it wernt for the christian worldview the most sensible position would be pragmatism and thus bolt would be right on the money
October 20th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Bec, who is Brent?
I couldn’t find it in the rant.
A pity he had a good topic and then he went sideways
October 20th, 2006 at 9:50 am
(AKA tbokar)
So let me see. One country, South Korea, embraces the American model, encourages its citizens to be productive, turns its economy round and starts to establish good stewardship of its resources. Its people are well fed and it is making a useful contribution to the world.
The other, North Korea, embraces a communist model, oppresses its people, either murders or allows to die a few million of them, establishes a dictatorship that indulges itself in the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It has plunged the country into abject poverty and is liability on the world stage
Whilst acknowledging the rather long bow, drawn by Bolt, between this and the Stop20 protest, you’ve got to admit that the left wingers and social activists are being rather dense in their refusal to recognise the bleeding obvious. But then isn’t that what ideology is all about?
October 20th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
So a dictatorship is considered communism? Why don’t they use Sweden as an example of socialist democracy? The fact is captialism works very well because it assumes the worst of people. But to suggest that there aren’t better ways to do things that to destroy the world with levels of consumption that are unsustainable is ridiculous. The man set up a straw man, and poisoned the well. A beautiful piece of rhetorical writing to be sure, but not truth telling, not embracing the complexity of society, but only trying to prove one side right. The leftists do the same often.
rev
October 20th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
rev, I must confess I enjoy sparring with you, even though it seems we hold some very diverse points of view. Now you have gone and written something I agree with, i.e. “that we need to find better ways of doing things that are not at levels of unsustainable consumption.” Dare I suggest that that comes back to stewardship? Oh well, back to the post driver.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Homer - Brent was mentioned in Bolt’s article, which you should read. It’s pretty entertaining - though probably more so if you personally know the people Bolt is talking about. Mark and Brent are hardly reds, and they definitely don’t have much in common with the hard-core socialist groups that Bolt mentions, ideologically and definitely not in terms of methodology!!
Rev - re post 26, you’re spot on. Abtruth, Bolt is *never* on the money, because he’s all rhetoric and scape-goating - and lest you accuse me of being blinded by my political bias, I have no time for many in formalised socialist groups for exactly the same reasons. Which gets me to Roger’s posts - Roger, ideologies on both the left and the right have the same high ideals, let’s not confuse the practice with the ideologies. Suggesting that the differences between South Korea and North Korea’s human rights standards come down to left vs. right is as silly as the lefty refugee activists think human rights is the domain of the left.
Re post 27 - the Rev does not object to broader notions of stewardship, he’s objecting to a specific ideology/theology.
October 20th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
yes it does. Stewardship is neccesary, but I find selfishness often justified as “good stewardship” in the Christian community. I can’t take this “extra” money I have and give it to the poor, I need to invest it and make more from it and then I will have even more to give to the poor, but ofcourse I should invest that and get even more ect.
The proper concept of stewardship should be us realizing that we are here to give our lives for others, as the Father sent Jesus, he now sends us to give our life for others. It is good stewardship to be downwardly mobile. Infact I would suggest you never really know what you need until you test it. The fact is we need far less than what we think we do.
rev
October 20th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
I agree with your point about the distortion of “stewardship’, Rev. This is why it must be balanced with a TOUGH theology of “enough”.
I really don’t want to idealise so-called ‘traditional’ societies, but it’s interesting that notions of stewardship work out better in communal, rather than individualistic, societies/economies. Once the cash economy is introduced into this societies, it distorts these structures, though I think that’s got more to do with the fact that cash is associated with a more individualistic economy (ie. in many societies, the introduction of the cash economy was associated with the introduction of individualisation of property, and this served those in authority and further marginalised the most vulnerable). Distortion of stewardship arises, then, because we don’t allow others any control over our resources, ie. those of us with money make decisions about our resources without any accountability to the poor.
So perhaps we can encourage good stewardship by being more financially transparent - maybe we need to have a community around us that knows how much we earn, and how much we spend, and what happens to the rest? This is a terrifying thought to me, and I’m not someone who’s particularly private about money - it’s definitely controversial in our society where people don’t talk about what they earn or what they spend…