From: conan@wheatena.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Christian Poverty
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:54:49 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.

This post is to (belatedly) follow up on two posts by Robert
Brown and Phil Weingart on Christian poverty.  To quickly 
recap the discussion to this point:

* Phil made a post in which he asserted that asceticism/poverty
  is not a Christian virtue but rather a pagan import.

* I responded by arguing that poverty is indeed a Christian
  virtue found in the gospels and with a long tradition in the
  Church. 

* Phil and Robert responded by asserting that I am misreading
  scripture and creating a virtue where none exists.  They 
  say that I might _personally_ be called to poverty, but that
  there is no universal injunction to seek it.

(I hope that this is an accurate summary of their views.  I 
have their posts on file if anyone would like the originals.)

My purpose in this post is to again assert, and this time in
detail, that poverty is a Christian virtue to which we are all
called by the Gospel of Christ.  In the end, it may turn out
that we are all saying the same things, and just misunderstanding
one another.  (I've had that happen to me more times than I can
remember on the net. :-)  

To do this, I'm going to have to be pedantic and define my terms
as I go along.  This is going to be a long post :-(.

First, though, a personal note to Phil, who wrote:

>I did not intend to malign your calling to poverty, and if that's
>what you think I was doing, I apologize.  I wish you all the
>success in this world and the next, as God counts success, in
>your calling. 

I didn't think you meant any offense, and none was taken.

Just to show where I am starting from, I am going to quote the
relevant chapter of my Rule.  I believe that this is pertinent
to this discussion since this rule was:  a) written for an order
of lay men and women (e.g. people like you and me); and b) I 
believe that the Rule conforms closely to the gospel message in
keeping with the spirit of St. Francis, who argued that the
_only_ rule his brothers needed was the gospel.

"Trusting in the Father, Christ chose for himself and his mother
a poor and humble life, even though he valued created things
attentively and lovingly.  Let the Secular Franciscans seek a
proper spirit of detachment from temporal goods by simplifying
their own material needs.  Let them be mindful that according to
the gospel they are stewards of the goods received for the
benefits of God's children.

"Thus, in the spirit of "the Beatitudes," and as pilgrims and
strangers on their way to the home of the Father, they should
strive to purify their hearts from every tendency and yearning
for possession and power."

		--Rule of the SFO, Chapter 11


I think the last two sentences give a good definition of poverty
as a Christian virtue.  To restate them:  we are to be poor in
this life since our hearts and minds should be set on the riches
of the New Jerusalem; we must remember that we do not own
anything which comes into our possession, but are just stewards
for the Lord.

At this point I need to digress to a comment Phil made.  He
wrote:

>The attitude of poverty, that is, of treasuring the Kingdom of
>God above material goods and putting no hope in this world, is a
>Christian virtue, but that's not the same as asceticism. 

Perhaps we mean different things by the word _asceticism_.  The
dictionary defines ascetic as: self-denying, austere; one who
leads a life of strict self-denial, esp. for religious purposes.
As a first pass, however, poverty of spirit would seem to be a
reasonable definition.  At the worst, I would call them related
and not antithetical concepts. 

Similarly, Robert wrote:

>Generalized glorification of poverty (for its own sake) is not
>IMO supported by Scripture no matter how Traditional it is. 

If I recall correctly, there was also a philosophical movement in
the Roman empire that went by the same name, a movement which
endorses asceticism as being good for its own sake.  (I would
welcome clarifications on this.) Now I agree that poverty for its
own sake is silly.  This is not, however, what I am supporting.
Rather, I am arguing that poverty is a necessary adjunct to our
response to the call to salvation.  This may be a fine
distinction, but I think an important one. 

In my original posting I said that I was poor because Jesus
was poor.  Robert responded:

>I don't think that you can extract from Scripture that Jesus was
>poor.  

After a brief search, I found three passages which indicate that
Jesus cast his earthly lot among the poor and lowly:  (Here and
below, all quotes are from the New Jerusalem Bible.  My apologies
for the abundance of proof-texts--it's the only way I can make
my case.)

Is 53:3--he was despised, the lowest of men, a man of
sorrows, familiar with suffering, one from whom, as it were, we
averted our gaze, despised, for whom we had no regard.

(I am of course, interpreting this passage as a prophecy of the
Messiah.)

Mt 8:20--Foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests,
but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head.

2 Co 8:9--You are well aware of the generosity which our Lord
Jesus Christ had,that, although he was rich, he became poor for
your sake, so that you should become rich through his poverty.

Throughout the gospels the tenor of Jesus' preaching is one of
identification with the poor and the lowly, and the injunction he
gives is that his disciples should do likewise:

Luke 15:33--none of you can be my disciple without giving up all
that he owns.

Again and again Jesus calls on us to turn our hearts from the 
things of this world, and embrace the kingdom of God.  To Robert,
who wrote:

>I have deleted much of your references which filter with your
>bias set toward poverty.  I contend that the Lord is not prima
>facie against wealth and will omit my textual argument other than
>to say that your Scriptural references and many others I can cite
>can be filtered thru my bias set toward prosperity. 

I can only say that I would like to see such an argument.  (I
suspect that below I will be anticipating some of your arguments.)

Phil wrote:

>However, Jesus' words to his disciples immediately following his
>discussion with the rich young man, Luke 18:29-30, make it clear
>that Jesus' intent was not that the disciples be materially
>destitute, but that they not be captive to material [wealth]. 

If Jesus did not intend his disciples to be materially destitute,
why did he command them:

Luke 9:3--Take nothing for the journey:  neither staff, nor
haversack, nor bread, nor money; and do not have a spare tunic.

The disciples carried with them the Word of the Living God, and
that in itself was to be sufficient for their needs.  Here Jesus
is setting an ideal for all who would live and preach the gospel:
have nothing, depend on nothing except what I have given you, for
I shall give something more valuable than you could ever acquire
on your own.  (I think the passage in Luke that Phil cites can be
interpreted in this way.)

Now I have heard it argued that we are instead called to be "poor
in spirit"-- we can have material wealth as long as we are not in
turn posessed by it.  I believe that this is what Phil and Robert
mean when they write:

>(Robert) Poverty is not necessary although the willing submission
>of everything you have is... 

>(Phil) What it demonstrates is that we cannot serve Money; we
>must serve the Lord instead. 

While this may be possible, I suspect that it is a terribly
dangerous course.  Radicals in the 60's coined the slogan: "to
create property is to create theft".  Let me paraphrase this into
"to create property is to create concern for property".  What we
actually have in hand, especially if it is something that the
>world tells us repeatedly is valuable, can only distract us from
the treasure we can now see only by faith.  While Jesus did say
that wealth was not an a priori barrier to salvation, he did say
that it was an obstacle.  He called money a "tainted thing" (Luke
16:9), and he repeatedly calls on his follows not to be
spiritually detached, but to actually rid themselves of it: "Sell
your possessions and give to those in need" (Luke 12:33).  In
light of this the more prudent course would be to follow the
examples of the first disciples:  "all who owned land or houses
would sell them, and bring the money from the sale of them, to 
present it to the apostles; it was then distributed to any who
might be in need" (Acts 4:35).

Now both Phil and Robert raised the notion of stewardship.
Phil wrote:

>There is also much in the scripture about the proper handling of
>material wealth, and the import of such stewardship to one's
>stature in the Kingdom of God (e.g. Luke 16:1-14).  Money is a
>very important topic in the scriptures, indicating that God
>expects his people to have it and know how to use it properly. 

And Robert wrote:

>Money and wealth are forms of power to get things done in the
>Earth.  He gave us wealth so that his Covenant can be established
>on the Earth (Deut 8:18).  Money is not nearly the highest form
>of power, but a lot of good can be done with it. 

True, we are stewards of God's creation and this stewardship is
symbolized by money.  But it is important to remember that a
steward owns nothing of his own, but manages something which
belongs to another.  And as I indicated above, Jesus made it
clear what we are to do with those "talents" which are given to
us: use them for the benefit of others, because the Father will
take care of us.  At this point I would like to quote from St.
Ambrose (I believe): "You are not giving alms to a poor man, you
are returning to him what is his".  If Christ is indeed in "the
least of our brothers", then it is for them that we are stewards
of our possessions.

As for power, as St. Paul says, "For although we are human, it is
not by human methods that we do battle" (2 Cor 10:3).  We cannot
put our trust in the things of this world to build up the kingdom
of God.  Only God's grace can do that.

In closing, let me stress that while I believe poverty to be a
Christian virtue, it is also an ideal, which means it is to be
strived for and only rarely attained in this world.  All of us,
myself most of all, will stumble, make compromises, and turn
aside.  But, especially in a society dedicated to material wealth
and pleasure, we cannot allow our eyes to be turned from this
virtue.

Yours in Christ,

David Cruz-Uribe, SFO