Christian Ethics: The Paradox of Poverty
Christian thinking has a strange relationship with poverty. There is at the one hand a strong a call for charity, to aid the poor, the opressed, and those in need. On the other hand, there is:
And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said:
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.
via Luke 6. And Romans 5:
More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
So, imagine for a moment, that the dreams of the world economists is bears fruit. That by intelligent policy the world leaders managed to thread the needle between freedom and social networking/support and as well come up with a workable plan and solve the “bottom billion” problem and poverty world-wide is solved. Everyone on the planet by dint of management of resource and economic management is now wealthy. Poverty is no more.
Then … no more will anyone be able to rejoice in his suffering … and have endurance, character and thereby hope (see Benedict on Hope). Everyone will be as shallow and hedonistic as the average American, without the tempering of either latent Puritan or religion to guide them. Oh, joy.
Furthermore, how should we interpret “blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” … Does that urge us to aid the poor and help them to become wealthy like us … thereby of course causing them to lose the kingdom of God (for there reward will then be in the here and now). Or does is more likely mean that we should not ourselves run the treadmill seeking salvation, ease, and happiness via material things.
So what is the way clear of this apparent paradox, that we are to help the poor … but that being poor is in and of itself a good thing. I have some thoughts … but I’m going to leave them for a later time.
Comments?
Filed under: Christianity • Mark O. • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
The problem of poverty, it seems to me, from a biblical point of view is nearly always one of the oppression, deception and mistreatment of the poor by individuals or systems.
Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan’s plea, defend the widow.
Isaiah 1
The Lord enters into judgment with his people’s elders and princes: It is you who have devoured the vineyard; the loot wrested from the poor is in your houses. What do you mean by crushing my people, and grinding down the poor when they look to you?
Isaiah 3
Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights…
Isaiah 10
Is this not the fast which I choose, to loosen the bonds of wickedness, to undo the bands of the yoke, and to let the oppressed go free, and break every yoke? Is it not to divide your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into the house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?
Isaiah 58
[God says] “…Is there yet a man in the wicked house,
Along with treasures of wickedness
And a short measure that is cursed?
“Can I justify wicked scales
And a bag of deceptive weights?
“For the rich men of the city are full of violence,
Her residents speak lies,
And their tongue is deceitful in their mouth…”
Micah 6
“Administer justice every morning; And deliver the person who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor…”
Jeremiah 21
And, of course, I could go on and on.
And so, because of these sort of passages that are consistently and frequently found throughout the Bible, the BIG problem of poverty is the oppression and cheating (both systemic and individual – policy and personal) that keeps the poor from being able to justly survive. The problem is not living with just a little. In fact, we can find many passages that suggest that living with a little is a good thing.
So, if that is the problem, the solution is not to be found in “making the poor, rich,” – especially if the systems in place to do so are oppressive and/or unjust in nature.
The solution is in ending systems and people and policy that would keep the poor from being able to tend to themselves. That, to me, seems to be the bigger answer to the bigger problems, as found in the Bible.
There are, of course, also the frequent commands to side with and assist the poor, the foreign, the marginalized, etc. Aside from systemic injustice. The notion of assisting those who need it simply because they need it (due to circumstances, weather, whatever).
In Biblical Justice type groups, we look to Micah 6 as a good lesson:
what does the LORD require of you
But to do justice, to love kindness,
And to walk humbly with your God?
We are to walk humbly with our God. Worship God. Pray. Contemplate. Study.
We are to love kindness (or mercy) – that is, we are to practice hospitality and charity. Give to the poor when they need it. Direct emergency assistance type work.
And in most faith traditions, we tend to be pretty good about at least striving for “Walking humbly with God” – that seems to be the main thrust of what most churches do.
Also, we are pretty good about “loving kindness,” doing charity work. We don’t do this nearly to the degree that we do the Worship, but we tend to see its importance and give maybe a tithe of our time and money to this end.
BUT, we (most churches and faith traditions) hardly scratch the surface of “Doing Justice” – working to change oppressive dishonest systems and striving to end policies that tend to be unjust towards the poor and marginalized.
God, in Micah, puts all three on a common level. God says, 1. Do Justice, 2. Love Mercy, 3. Walk humbly with God.
I’d think we’d do better to do all three, too. And that, it seems to me, is NOT just trying to make the poor into the wealthy, but enabling them to live responsibly and simply by living responsibly and simply ourselves.
Sorry so long.
Dan,
This consistent meme of “poverty=oppression” is counterfactual. In the Collier book, it is noted that one of the “traps” keeping a country poor is “being landlocked with poor neighbors.” What sort of oppression is that?
And my suggestion of “making them rich” would entail not “giving them money” but enabling them to find independence and prosperity. Collier notes that this world is made up of about 1 billion who are very wealthy. 4 1/2 billion who are rapidly getting wealthy and 1 billion who are stuck, mired in poverty. What I suggested is that if poverty was solved it would not be done “with oppressive systems in place.” That’s missing the point.
Consider a world in which those systems were “gone”. That poverty was “solved”. Where then would be the poor, “blessed with the kingdom” or those learning endurance yields character yields the hope which will be fulfilled.
The question I’m asking is, what if poverty isn’t the problem we should be combating at all. Genesis it might be argued has a consistent theme of the moral superiority of the nomadic life over the town/city based agricultural community., akin to the Samuel argument in Kings, in which rule by judge and clan was better than Kingship.
The question I’m asking is, what if poverty isn’t the problem we should be combating at all.
That’s what I’m saying: From a biblical point of view, the problem mostly was oppression/injustice NOT poverty in and of itself. Although, again from a biblical point of view, poverty would still remain and be a problem and compassion need to be practiced.
This consistent meme of “poverty=oppression” is counterfactual.
? How so? Certainly not from a biblical point of view. That is, I’m not saying “poverty equals oppression” but rather that, from a biblical point of view, too often the poor ARE being oppressed and justice kept from them.
Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights… ~Isaiah
I wonder what “rights” Isaiah is speaking of there?
Dan,
I repeat:
Another cause of poverty is the economic consequences of “rent” income (economists call natural resource income “rent”, such as oil or other such incomes). An example give is the effect of North Sea oil on the Dutch economy. Selling the oil increased the value of the dutch currency, making it harder for all the rest of the Dutch industries to compete in the global market.
The point is that I’m not contesting that the Bible felt poverty and oppression is linked although I don’t think it is universally true.
I am considering that poverty is in part seen as a positive good. Just as the life of nomadic herder was seen as better than that in the town.
I’m not getting how your points on oppression have anything to do with that at all. Why is that relevant?
I am considering that poverty is in part seen as a positive good. Just as the life of nomadic herder was seen as better than that in the town.
I’m not getting how your points on oppression have anything to do with that at all. Why is that relevant?
Your title for your post is “Christian Ethics: The Paradox of Poverty.”
I was relating what the Bible (whence we get our “Christian Ethics”) has to say about poverty. That seemed relevant to me.
I think we might look at poverty in a few ways.
There is devastating poverty – poverty where people suffer and die.
In this case, according to the Bible, I think, we ought to provide aid. Relief. Assistance.
BUT, at the same time we ought to be checking to see if there are unjust structures, practices in place – and especially and for our soul’s own sake, check to see if we’re part of the injustice. Are our personal, community or national policies and practices contributing to the injustice which is resulting in this devastating poverty?
And when we do this, we need to keep in mind that many times – maybe most of the time – this sort of structural injustice is not intentional. Very rarely does anyone institute ANY policies where they said, “What can we do to cheat and oppress the poor?”
Rather, it tends to be (it seems to me) more of a consequential thing. We want to have enough for ourselves, so we set up systems that benefit ourselves so we can get all that we think we need. But sometimes when we do this, what we think of as our “needs” (a car to get us everywhere, gas to fuel the cars, the cheapest shoes possible, etc) result in undesirable consequences (child labor, wars to defend “our” oil or water, environmental degradation, cancer and illness, etc).
Anyway, there’s THAT sort of devastating poverty.
Then, there is living simply and with enough. Having the resources available to you (Good land to live off of, a means to provide healthy, dependable food, clean water, etc) to be able to live with plenty, but not wallowing in accumulated stuff.
Ched Myers book repeatedly talks about God as a God of plenty – that there are plenty of resources as long as and until people start overconsuming and hoarding. Building barn after barn in which to store their excess.
That sort of simple living is, indeed a good and positive thing and to be encouraged. I wouldn’t call that poverty, though. Even though people living successfully at that level may be living at what we today would call a “poverty level.”
Dan,
Why? Poverty is materially good. Suffering is good. Poverty is good. Death has been “trampled by death” by Christ’s resurrection and holds no sting. Why help? Poverty is materially good for a person. That’s the paradox, to which you seem blind.
I am not blind to it. I disagree with your take on it.
Dan,
So explain.
There is both a call to charity and a notion of the material benefits to a life of poverty. How do you resolve it.
Poverty is materially good. Suffering is good. Poverty is good.
Says who?
A life of simplicity is a good.
Suffering is a fact of life, beyond good or bad, I’d suggest. But certainly not a moral good.
Poverty – of the devastating poverty sort (dictionary definition: the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.) – meaning not being able to sustain one’s self or one’s family, is not a moral good.
It leads to the aforementioned suffering, which may be a fact of life but is not something to encourage.
If suffering is a good, then why not encourage more random violence? Why not encourage more rape and child killings?
That some good may come out of suffering or poverty is not to be confused with them being a moral good in and of themselves. That would be a crazy mixed up world and would bastardize Jesus’ words to mean something he did not.
Dan,
“Blessed are the poor for they …”
“Celebrate your suffering … ”
“Death, where is thy sting”
Poor is materially good.
Suffering is good.
Death itself is nothing to fear.
That’s the paradox. You can’t confront it by just denying it (“that would be a crazy mixed up world”). Why do you claim it is not a moral good for the Bible says it is.
“Blessed are the poor” does not equal “poverty is good.”
“Celebrate your suffering” does not equal “suffering is good.”
No paradox. The Bible does not say what you think it says.
Dan,
So blessings are a bad thing?
I should celebrate because of something bad?
Paradox.
Look at St. Antony and all the desert fathers. Look at St. Francis of Assisi. They lived by choice in abject poverty because they thought a material, moral good. The did not just “live in simplicity.” They were dirt poor. Oppressed, if you will. They had (and embraced nonetheless) all the problems which you are trying to remedy that face the poor today.
The Bible indeed says what I think it does and always has. It also says that we should help those in need. This is a paradox and denial or refusal to look it square in the face isn’t helping.