Bookie
I've noticed an interesting trend in my personal life of late, as I sit here pondering the outcome of the English Premier League's latest round of farcical and amazing results.
That trend has nothing to do with the EPL, but a lot more to do with what I do when not thinking too hard about it.
I tend to give books away as birthday presents; in the past, I used to read them first and then give them away. I'm one of those who treats books well – most people say my old books look brand-new. But of late, I've realised that I'm giving away books I haven't read, some nicely sealed in plastic, some being unread copies of books I have already read.
I suspect that somewhere along the line, personal affluence made me slowly slip into this new mode. In the past, I used to budget $10 or so for gifts. I'm not rich, and I come from a line of thrifty merchants. Now, I tend to aim at £20 as a limit for casual gifts, and for those who mean more to me, it goes as high as £200. Madness.
I don't think it's purely the affluence. I think it's also relative affluence and an awareness of what that means. Most people I know are in the top 5% of the world's population in terms of earnings. That might sound outrageous, but the average person in my city is in the top 5%. Think about the billions of poor agricultural workers in the third world nations, and you will see why this is true.
What does it all mean? I guess when the Bible repeatedly tells us not to be consumed by love of money, that the love of money is the root of all evil, that rich men find it hard to squeak through into heaven, and that we are to be good stewards who give everything back to our master... it's good to just spend money on other people.
We who are people of the Book ought to pay up out of our own wealth for people who need it. I have been perturbed in the past to watch Christian institutions raise millions of dollars in funds just to build nice buildings. It's all very un-Christian. Just take a look at this passage, if you need to know why I say this.
The prosperity gospel is a sham. Whether you end up with wealth or not, understand this: wealth is a burden, to be given away wisely and easily. When you cannot shed wealth easily, then it is as good as a shackle of rusty iron.
That trend has nothing to do with the EPL, but a lot more to do with what I do when not thinking too hard about it.
I tend to give books away as birthday presents; in the past, I used to read them first and then give them away. I'm one of those who treats books well – most people say my old books look brand-new. But of late, I've realised that I'm giving away books I haven't read, some nicely sealed in plastic, some being unread copies of books I have already read.
I suspect that somewhere along the line, personal affluence made me slowly slip into this new mode. In the past, I used to budget $10 or so for gifts. I'm not rich, and I come from a line of thrifty merchants. Now, I tend to aim at £20 as a limit for casual gifts, and for those who mean more to me, it goes as high as £200. Madness.
I don't think it's purely the affluence. I think it's also relative affluence and an awareness of what that means. Most people I know are in the top 5% of the world's population in terms of earnings. That might sound outrageous, but the average person in my city is in the top 5%. Think about the billions of poor agricultural workers in the third world nations, and you will see why this is true.
What does it all mean? I guess when the Bible repeatedly tells us not to be consumed by love of money, that the love of money is the root of all evil, that rich men find it hard to squeak through into heaven, and that we are to be good stewards who give everything back to our master... it's good to just spend money on other people.
We who are people of the Book ought to pay up out of our own wealth for people who need it. I have been perturbed in the past to watch Christian institutions raise millions of dollars in funds just to build nice buildings. It's all very un-Christian. Just take a look at this passage, if you need to know why I say this.
The prosperity gospel is a sham. Whether you end up with wealth or not, understand this: wealth is a burden, to be given away wisely and easily. When you cannot shed wealth easily, then it is as good as a shackle of rusty iron.
Labels: Books, Christianity, Wealth
etched with acid at 12:27:00 am
5 Comments:
then what do we make of the temples of gold and precious stones that the Kings of Israel have sought and (sometimes even instructed!) to build?
I believe the issue is not so much the temple/church building activity itself, but rather the purpose of building it the way they intend.
In any case, as a follow up to your final paragraph, I have found a rather appalling presumptuousness in the way certain 'Christians' (I use the word rather liberally here) argue how "the Christian life should be one of [material] abundance because God loves us, and with affluence not only can we be better testimonies, but also better ministers and fishers of men".
While I am not an advocate of overly austere Christianity or anything of that sort, the correlation between God's love and the extent of his material blessing I find rather grotesque, and the manner in which "followers of the Book" have rationalized their self-centered materialism rather deplorable in its conceit.
And it is here I believe we see evidence of how the prosperity gospel has mutated (like a virus) into many different strains, and seeped into Christian faiths in a manner often subtle, though more insidious for that reason.
It is important for us to realise that whatever we have been blessed with is a result of His grace, and not any sort of entitlement in the 'package' of Christianity, or anything of that sort. Indeed, as you have mentioned, wealth is to be given away wisely and easily.
and regardless of whether He gives or takes away, blessed should still be His name. Ultimately, His grace should still be enough, should it not? :)
Augie, let's try to think of it holistically. Look at the temples... the wealth of the people in physical form (i.e. real gold and material substance) was locked up in public view for all to see. This meant that personal wealth was curtailed; God owned all the cash.
But the point was not the sacrifices and the gold per se. God Himself said that that wasn't the point.
Conclusion: the purpose of all that material wealth display in temples was two-fold: 1) take Mammon out of the hands of men, 2) put in in public view where it couldn't be used for bribes (i.e. 'hallow' it).
Remember that the Levites were supported by the tithe, but were not supposed to have personal wealth. I tend to think that there ought to be two kinds of leaders in churches: 1) those who support themselves by their personal work (i.e. tent-makers) and 2) those who subsist (note my choice of word) on the tithe, with the balance going to church work and not the leader.
This is a 100% Biblical perspective. Go read the Bible.
i understand.. I guess it is hard to demand that kind of transparency from churches anymore i.e wealth locked up in public view or to expect subsistence living from a pastor living in affluent Singapore. I had that argument with Hoe before, couldn't really decide what subsistence entailed or what level was appropriate.
Well, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen; that tends to lead to two balancing conclusions: 1) the just shall live by faith, 2) the worker is worthy of his hire.
That means pastors etc ought to live on what is enough to keep mind and body alive, plus whatever bonuses come without the pastor asking people for them; and if he gets a million-buck salary, he must be able to justify it (and the way he used it) before the face of God some day. Not for us to say, that one.
At the same time, having to pay pastors 'competitive' salaries in affluent Singapore probably is a sign of what society as far as God is concerned.
Post a Comment
<< Home