Is the American pursuit of wealth at odds with Christian principles?

Question

It seems we often think of the wealthy as virtuous, hard workers who "earned it", but didn't Jesus say it was better to be poor?

Answer 1

Get ready for the great soft-shoe routine.
But from my view:
Let's agree that just becoming poor is a not a positive option in itself. For one thing, if you simply discarded your wealth, you could be guilty of squandering an opportunity to help the needy. I do believe that humans have a responsibility to alleviate as much suffering of their fellow as is practical. Even though I am not a believer, I think this message from Jesus would by itself make him a historical figure of great stature.

What I think happened is that the Christian movement turned "inward," mostly through the aggrandizement of Paul and others, and more or less put aside the humanity of Jesus. Or at least relegated it to a tertiary role, a "hobby" wherein some trivial pittance to charity covers the whole thing. Paul's insistence on centering life on "faith" rather than acts essentially made a mockery of the "faith without acts is dead" concept. Some cynics might say that this revision of Jesus is precisely what made him palatable to emperors, moguls and the powerful. After all, it was the Roman authorities who more or less mandated the whole of the "New Testament."

Summary: We have a duty to provide our families with shelter, nutrition, education and love so they can become moral productive members of the human family. If what you are pursuing is wealth, you are banal and lead an unexamined life - and yes, even though I am an atheist, I would behoove you to take THAT Jesus seriously. If you are a truly charitable Christian, I applaud your efforts and vision.

Answer 2

This is an often misunderstood principal. Money is not the root of money, the love of money is the root of all evil. Working hard, and making money isn't a sin unless you put acquiring the money ahead of God and other people's welfare. Jesus did say that it was hard for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven, but not because of the money itself. He was saying that when people have a lot of material wealth, they have a harder time relying on Him, and not in their wealth. Having it all sometimes blinds people to the fact that they need to know God. That being said, not everyone who is rich is bad, and not everyone who is poor is virtuous, and vice versa.

Answer 3

"It is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle"

So, what did Jesus mean by "rich"? I think He was saying that if anyone puts too great a value on money, possessions, status or security that such a person will mold their relationship with God around that. They will, in their own minds and hearts, make the truth of the Gospel conform to their priorities. And that will have the effect of perverting the truth.

Answer 4

Jesus said a man cannot serve two masters-you can't be a slave to material desires and still pursue a spiritual lifestyle. The wealthy have a choice to make about how they use their wealth.

Answer 5

I would say so, but then, I'm no longer a Christian. I would also say that I beleive many people who self-identify as Christians do not follow Jesus so much as they follow the other-condemnatory and congratulatory self-righteous message of Paul.

But to understand the thinking of people who equate the accumulation of weath with morality, you ought to read "Don't Think of an Elephant" by Lakoff.

Here's some exerpts from it, about the conflation of wealth and "morality"

Social/religious conservatives almost universally operate form these basic beliefs: (I know it's long, but read the whole thing):

"The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good.

What is needed in this kind of a world is a strong, strict father who can:

* Protect the family in the dangerous world,
* Support the family in the difficult world, and
* Teach his children right from wrong.

What is required of the child is obedience, because the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong. It is further assumed that the only way to teach kids obedience-that is, right from wrong- is through punishment, painful punishment, when they do wrong. This includes hitting them, and some authors on conservative child rearing recommend sticks, belts, and wooden paddles on the bare bottom. Some authors suggest this start at birth, but Dobson is more liberal. "There is no excuse for spanking babies younger than fifteen or eighteen months of age" (Dobson, The New Dare to Discipline, 65).

The rationale behind physical punishment is this: When children do something wrong, if they are physically disciplined they learn not to do it again. That means that they will develop internal discipline to keep themselves from doing wrong, so that in the future they will be obedient and act morally. Without such punishment, the world will go to hell. There will be no morality.

Such internal discipline has a secondary effect. It is what is required for success in the difficult, competitive world. That is, if people are disciplined and pursue their self-interest in this land of opportunity, they will become prosperous and self-reliant. Thus, the strict father model links morality with prosperity. The same discipline you need to be moral is what allows you to prosper. The link is the pursuit of self-interest.

Given opportunity and discipline, pursuing your self-interest should enable you to prosper.

Now, Dobson is very clear about the connection between the strict father worldview and free market capitalism. The link is the morality of self-interest, which is a version of Adam Smith's view of capitalism. Adam Smith said that if everyone pursues their own profit, then the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand-that is, by nature-just naturally. Go about pursuing your own profit, and you are helping everyone.

This is linked to a general metaphor that views well-being as wealth. For example, if I do you a favor, you say, "I owe you one" or "I'm in your debt." Doing something good for someone is metaphorically like giving him money. He "owes" you something. And he says, "How can I ever repay you?"

Applying this metaphor to Adam Smith's "law of nature," if everyone pursues her own self-interest, then by the invisible hand, by nature, the self-interest of all will be maximized. That is, it is moral to pursue your self-interest, and there is a name for those people who do not do it. The name is do-gooder. A do-gooder is someone who is trying to help someone else rather than herself and is getting in the way of those who are pursuing their self-interest. Do-gooders screw up the system.

In this model there is also a definition of what it means to become a good person. A good person-a moral person-is someone who is disciplined enough to be obedient, to learn what is right, do what is right and not do what is wrong, and to pursue her self-interest to prosper and become self-reliant. A good child grows up to be like that."

Answer 6

usa retains on straying extra and extra from the comprehend almighty God. Having a president who isn't a Christian has in simple terms speeded the full technique up. I and tens of millions of alternative American Christians will in no way provide up praising the call of Jesus Christ our lord and savior nevertheless.

Answer 7

" It is easier for camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
I think Jesus talked about it this way because having wealth is NOT intrinsically a barrier to reaching God; but because rich people love their money supremely and this goes against his Sermon on the Mount to Love God above all things or any graven image, and his second; to love thy neighbor as thyself. This is hard to do when money is driving your mind, your feelings, and your actions. Don't you think?
ps. I cannot find any reference that Jesus said it was good to poor or rich. He spoke in parable and analogy about spiritual poverty, and/or abundance; and the fruits of words and actions. He wanted his fellow man, I think, to observe oneself and stop worrying so much about what others were up to. "Know the Truth and It Shall set You Free."

Answer 8

It's by choice. It's the Gospel of Judas that you are to give your wealth away to the poor, like it's supposed to do some good.

Jesus said sell all you own and buy a sword. Leave your things with your family.

Buy a man a fish and he eats one meal. Teach him to fish and he eats forever. If he chooses not to fish out of laziness, that's his problem not yours.

Answer 9

The problem with wealth is that people often make money their God. The Bible says that we are not supposed to have any god besides the one true living God. When we have a lot of money or a lot of possession we tend to make them our god. A man who has no money can not make that money more important in their life then God. People make gods out of all kinds of things. If you skip reading your Bible to watch a television show you have just made television your god. If you don't attend church but go to the mall instead you have just made shopping your god. If you read romance novels more then you read your Bible then you have made romance novels your God. If you skip Bible study to watch the football game you have just made football your god. The poor man is better off because he has fewer possessions to put above worshipping God. A man who has no television can not make television his god. A man who has no money can not make spending it his god.

Answer 10

America itself is at odds with Jesus Christ. There is a reason Jesus said that no man can serve to masters.