How much Money should a Christian have?

[JRKH]

How much is too much. I realize that we can’t declare some “sum” or dollar amount, but what constitutes too much money in ones possesion.
Here I am refering to individuals and not institutions, and not Churches. That would get into an entirely different discussion.

For individuals, How much money is too much? How much constitutes “laying up treasures on Earth? $50,000 - $100,000 per anum?
Jesus teaches in Matt 6:19-34 that we are not to store up riches on earth, not try to serve two masters and not worry about what we are to eat tomorrow etc.
In Matthew 19:21-24 is the illustration of the rich man who cannot give up his possesions to Follow Jesus and Jesus comment about the difficulty of the rich to get into heaven.

Jesus teaches us these things, but do we take them to heart. How much do we sacrifice for our Lord and His Church? We have all seen our parishes and our schools struggle with finances, while parishoners (myself included) sock away money for “a rainy day” or for vacation, or for Christmas presents.
We have to have a new DVR,
Or Johnny wants a video game station
We buy a car with all the bells and whistles instead of the base model

How much should wealth should any – individual Christian hold?

Peace
James

 

[rlg94086]

How much is too much. I realize that we can’t declare some “sum” or dollar amount, but what constitutes too much money in ones possesion.
Here I am refering to individuals and not institutions, and not Churches. That would get into an entirely different discussion.

For individuals, How much money is too much? How much constitutes “laying up treasures on Earth? $50,000 - $100,000 per anum?
Jesus teaches in Matt 6:19-34 that we are not to store up riches on earth, not try to serve two masters and not worry about what we are to eat tomorrow etc.
In Matthew 19:21-24 is the illustration of the rich man who cannot give up his possesions to Follow Jesus and Jesus comment about the difficulty of the rich to get into heaven.

Jesus teaches us these things, but do we take them to heart. How much do we sacrifice for our Lord and His Church? We have all seen our parishes and our schools struggle with finances, while parishoners (myself included) sock away money for “a rainy day” or for vacation, or for Christmas presents.
We have to have a new DVR,
Or Johnny wants a video game station
We buy a car with all the bells and whistles instead of the base model

How much should wealth should any – individual Christian hold?

Peace
James

Hi James,

I also reflect on this question. I don’t think there is a hard-fast answer, but I will be interested to hear some viewpoints on the forum.

Right now, we have a middle-middle-class lifestyle. A decent house (mortgaged), but not as large as it could be; two cars, neither of them flashy…one is wholly owned by my employer. We don’t have much money put away - we were wiped out (including 401k) when I was laid off a few years ago, so we are rebuilding. Certainly, you need to store up some wealth to handle the uncertainties of life.

I’m pretty certain that putting money away for retirement, so you aren’t a burden on others, is probably fine. But, again, how much money? How comfortable should your retirement be? How much travel is allowed for pleasure?

Also, I know in my case, I could live simpler than my wife wants to live in retirement. I have to keep her in mind, as I want my marriage to last. How far do you go in keeping your spouse’s desires under an “acceptable” amount of wealth?

 

[LilyM]

Wealth in and of itself, not to mention its possession, isn’t per se sinful or wrong, presuming you’re not vowed to poverty or anything. Not in the slightest.

St Paul says that it is the LOVE of money which is the root of all evil, not merely its possession or use, whether on oneself or on others.

Neither is there anything wrong with spending on your own pleasure and enjoyment, as long as you balance this out with spending a proportionate amount on others.

Remember, even in the OT God didn’t prohibit the people of Israel from saving for or spending upon themselves, as long as they gave their tithes and firstfruits to Him as an acknowledgement that their wealth was His gift. If you take this as your rule you can’t go too far wrong.

 

[CapIV]

There is nothing wrong with having a lot of money. It is if we feel more attached to the money than to God that a problem arises.

Look at Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. Two of the richest men in the world, yet very charitable.

 

[rlg94086]

Wealth in and of itself, not to mention its possession, isn’t per se sinful or wrong, presuming you’re not vowed to poverty or anything. Not in the slightest.

St Paul says that it is the LOVE of money which is the root of all evil, not merely its possession or use, whether on oneself or on others.

Neither is there anything wrong with spending on your own pleasure and enjoyment, as long as you balance this out with spending a proportionate amount on others.

Remember, even in the OT God didn’t prohibit the people of Israel from saving for or spending upon themselves, as long as they gave their tithes and firstfruits to Him as an acknowledgement that their wealth was His gift. If you take this as your rule you can’t go too far wrong.

I understand the attachment issue…and love of money, but it is the balance that I question. What is the right balance?

Some people are very scrupulous about spending any money on anything “frivolous.” Others try to kid themselves that they have no attachment, as they get into their private jet for a couple months in their winter home in the Bahamas. No one is going to ask them (this includes Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) to give everything away, as Jesus asked the rich man in the gospels, so they never will have their attachment challenged directly. Do these wealthy people have the right balance? I certainly have no idea.

I am more concerned about my own balance…not that of Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.

 

[JRKH]

Wealth in and of itself, not to mention its possession, isn’t per se sinful or wrong, presuming you’re not vowed to poverty or anything. Not in the slightest.

St Paul says that it is the LOVE of money which is the root of all evil, not merely its possession or use, whether on oneself or on others.

**Neither is there anything wrong with spending on your own pleasure and enjoyment, as long as you balance this out with spending a proportionate **amount on others.

Remember, even in the OT God didn’t prohibit the people of Israel from saving for or spending upon themselves, as long as they gave their tithes and firstfruits to Him as an acknowledgement that their wealth was His gift. If you take this as your rule you can’t go too far wrong.

A most interesting observation.
When were talking about our, “pleasure” shouldn’t that be first and foremost doing the will our Father?
Also I like the proportionate idea. But what is "proportinate? What should we proportion to “others”, to God’s work per se as opposed to our pleasure? Should we spend more on our pleasure than we spend on our church, schools, and charities?

Of course I’m only toalking hypothetically, but do we spend $1.00 on charity and $5.00 on us or the other way around?

Peace
James

 

[LilyM]

I understand the attachment issue…and love of money, but it is the balance that I question. What is the right balance?

Some people are very scrupulous about spending any money on anything “frivolous.” Others try to kid themselves that they have no attachment, as they get into their private jet for a couple months in their winter home in the Bahamas. No one is going to ask them (this includes Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) to give everything away, as Jesus asked the rich man in the gospels, so they never will have their attachment challenged directly. Do these wealthy people have the right balance? I certainly have no idea.

I am more concerned about my own balance…not that of Warren Buffet or Bill Gates.

Like I said, why not trust the balance that God set in the OT - if they give 10% of their wealth to charities, then even He was satisfied with that much from the Israelites. I think He knew what He was doing when He set that requirement and that His standards haven’t really changed.

 

[JRKH]

There is nothing wrong with having a lot of money. It is if we feel more attached to the money than to God that a problem arises.

Look at Warren Buffet or Bill Gates. Two of the richest men in the world, yet very charitable.

Yes they are very charitable. Actually most very wealthy people are also philanthropic. But on the other hand did Bill Gates need to spend that much on his home? After all he doesn’t have a large family.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Wealth in and of itself, not to mention its possession, isn’t per se sinful or wrong, presuming you’re not vowed to poverty or anything. Not in the slightest.

St Paul says that it is the LOVE of money which is the root of all evil, not merely its possession or use, whether on oneself or on others.

Neither is there anything wrong with spending on your own pleasure and enjoyment, as long as you balance this out with spending a proportionate amount on others.

Remember, even in the OT God didn’t prohibit the people of Israel from saving for or spending upon themselves, as long as they gave their tithes and firstfruits to Him as an acknowledgement that their wealth was His gift. If you take this as your rule you can’t go too far wrong.

Absolutely correct. It is the “Love” of money. It is also the idea of keeping it, and storing it up (money and posessions). Hoarding it in other words. So if a person has a lifestyle where in there needs basic are met, housing, food, etc. doesn’t other monies beocme “desposable”?
It seems that a lot of people won’t settle for needs being met, but need to be “comfortable” before they can really see being altruistic. The Bill Gates analogy is apt here.
A person who spends a great deal of money on a house that far exceeds their needs, just to provide comfort to themselves and satisfy their desires. Understand that I am not picking on Bill Gates here, it’s just that he was brought up earlier. People with far less money than BG overspend on their comfort rather than just satisfying their needs. (I’m guilty of it myself)

 

[rlg94086]

Like I said, why not trust the balance that God set in the OT - if they give 10% of their wealth to charities, then even He was satisfied with that much from the Israelites. I think He knew what He was doing when He set that requirement and that His standards haven’t really changed.

That’s fine, but Jesus took things beyond the OT. The OT standards were just a baby-step. It appears the rich man in the Gospel was giving his 10%…Jesus told him to give it all up, and the man went away sad, because he was attached. Giving 10% does not necessarily mean you don’t have an attachment to money, does it?
Mark 10:

19 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’" 20 He replied and said to him, “Teacher, all of these I have observed from my youth.” 21 Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said to him, “You are lacking in one thing. Go, sell what you have, and give to (the) poor and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” 22 At that statement his face fell, and he went away sad, for he had many possessions. 23 4 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!”

 

[JMBNH]

It depends, though I think the frivolous spending on holidays (not counting pilgrimages or missionary/charitable work here) but I find it interesting that though my family is quite rich (I personally am not), I’ve only once left western Europe and haven’t left the UK in about 2 years whereas some people less well off seem to go on holiday to an exotic location once or twice a year. I personally very rarely spend money beyond rent, bills, food, train fare to visit relatives and money in the collection pot (though I do buy maybe 1 CD a month and spend a bit on alcohol, though trying to cut the latter down, neither of which is essential). On the money I’m living off I think that is about right and no more would be justified, but if I were working and had a family then more would be okay I think provided I were paying all essentials, not getting into debt, saving emergency money and giving some to the Church and charity

 

[LilyM]

Yes they are very charitable. Actually most very wealthy people are also philanthropic. But on the other hand did Bill Gates need to spend that much on his home? After all he doesn’t have a large family.

Peace
James

It’s much more than just a family home, though. It would also serve as offices for the companies (plural) that he and his wife run, he probably entertains business guests there as well and things like that.

Of course appearances and impressions count in such situations. What kind of impression would it make if you videoconferenced with Bill Gates and his ‘office’ was a tiny little dingy bedroom or something?

Not to mention that, if I remember rightly, it’s kinda an experimental lab as well, where he’s trying out new technologies and inventions and stuff.

 

[JRKH]

Hi James,

I also reflect on this question. I don’t think there is a hard-fast answer, but I will be interested to hear some viewpoints on the forum.

I agree there can be nothing “Hard and Fast”. It’s more of a phylicophical question arising out of seeing my parents and grandparents scrimp and sacrifice to send us kids to catholic school, and then watching people drive to church in overpriced SUV’s and the schools struggling to try and keep the tuition down to something managable.

Right now, we have a middle-middle-class lifestyle. A decent house (mortgaged), but not as large as it could be; two cars, neither of them flashy…one is wholly owned by my employer. We don’t have much money put away - we were wiped out (including 401k) when I was laid off a few years ago, so we are rebuilding. Certainly, you need to store up some wealth to handle the uncertainties of life.

Agreed. We had to save everything we could these last few years and are now spending it to care for my DW who is ill. I left my job to care for her.

I’m pretty certain that putting money away for retirement, so you aren’t a burden on others, is probably fine. But, again, how much money? How comfortable should your retirement be? How much travel is allowed for pleasure?

Also, I know in my case, I could live simpler than my wife wants to live in retirement. I have to keep her in mind, as I want my marriage to last. How far do you go in keeping your spouse’s desires under an “acceptable” amount of wealth?

We certainly have to keep in mind our spouses and children. God gave them to us and we must do all we can to care for them now and in the future.

Peace
James

 

[chewchoo]

it is said that the lord will provide.

but god also wants us to use our “talents” wisely, make them compound if possible.

so if the lord is providing for me now, why shouldn’t i invest what i am saving to have for my retirement? yes, i must support the church and help the poor now. and i mustn’t live outrageously. but if i am fortuneate to have some left over each month, why can’t i keep it for my future? like someone already said, i don’t want to be a burden to anyone in my old age.

and if i do have “too much” who should i give the excess to?

 

[JRKH]

it is said that the lord will provide.

but god also wants us to use our “talents” wisely, make them compound if possible.

so if the lord is providing for me now, why shouldn’t i invest what i am saving to have for my retirement? yes, i must support the church and help the poor now. and i mustn’t live outrageously. but if i am fortuneate to have some left over each month, why can’t i keep it for my future? like someone already said, i don’t want to be a burden to anyone in my old age.

and if i do have “too much” who should i give the excess to?

If one is living within their means, and balancing good works against worldy desires, it depends on how they balance. (i.e. do I buy food for the food drive at church or two new video games.)

I would ponder on this from Mark chapter 10
*17 As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. 19 "You know the commandments, `DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.’ " 20 And he said to Him, “Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up.” 21 Looking at him, **Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” 22 But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. ***

Peace
James

 

[wjp984]

That’s fine, but Jesus took things beyond the OT. The OT standards were just a baby-step. It appears the rich man in the Gospel was giving his 10%…Jesus told him to give it all up, and the man went away sad, because he was attached. Giving 10% does not necessarily mean you don’t have an attachment to money, does it?

Here is my opinion on this topic and I’ve seen others say this. Jesus first answered that following the commandments was sufficient or something like that. Then the rich man continued to question Jesus asking him what else he should do if he wanted to be more than that. It is only then that Jesus responded back with giving everything up and following him, to which the rich man went away sad.

Therefore what I think this means is that for most people, doing their part, the 10% tithe as you put it, as well as being a faithful practicing Catholic is sufficent and then they will hopefully one day be in Heaven. However, there are some who have a higher calling and live in poverty for the sake of Jesus and who are at the service of others and basically truly living for others and only having what is essential. However, that means still having what is essential. This might be the ideal standard to live up to as our material wealth is meaningless in Heaven but it is not required of us.

 

[nsper7]

Earlier this year, in writing a refutation of a heterodox ‘Christian’ website, I discussed the Rich Young Ruler story. The gentleman being refuted in this article is named Tim Spiess (just so you know why I keep mentioning the person’s name). Hopefully, this addresses the issue and please comment on my writing.

Now, Spiess uses the story of the rich young ruler to try and point to how Jesus required a person to forsake everything (to his credit, Spiess is willing to admit this was a specific command to a specific individual, but he still draws a connection between forsaking everything and Salvation) in order to be Saved, but, on closer reading of the verses, it will become apparent that this is a misinterpretation.

Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?” So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He said to Him, “Which ones?” Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. Then Jesus said to His disciples, “Assuredly, I say to you that it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” When His disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Then Peter answered and said to Him, “See, we have left all and followed You. Therefore what shall we have?” So Jesus said to them, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”

When the young man approaches Jesus, he asks Him what ‘good thing’ he may do to have eternal life. It might seem like a minor linguistic issue, but the man is not asking how to be Saved or even asking Jesus to Save him, but is instead wanting to Save himself. Further, in calling Jesus ‘good’ (agathos in the Greek) and then asking what good (agathos) thing he can do to earn eternal life, it almost looks like he is asking how he can be like Jesus (God the Son), since, as Jesus points out, only God is ‘good’ (also note, this is not Jesus denying that He is God and good, but Him pointing out to the young man that, in calling Him [Jesus] ‘good’, he must know exactly what this means). Then, when Jesus asks the young man if he has obeyed the commandments (notice that Jesus uses the commandments from the Old Testament), the young man responds that he has ‘kept them from his youth’. This seems to show self-righteousness on the part of the young man, especially when one takes into account Jesus’ interpretation of the commandments ‘Thou shalt not murder’ and ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ in Matthew 5:22, 28. Some commentators, including myself, question whether the young man really obeyed the commandment as God had intended them (as opposed to how Pharisaic Judaism re/misinterpreted them).

When the young man asks Jesus what he lacks, Jesus begins His response by saying, ‘If you want to be perfect…’. Notice, it is not addressing eternal life/Salvation at this point, except to setup a dichotomy. This young man wishes to do a ‘good thing’ to be Saved. The only way to be ‘good’ is to be like God and, thus, perfect. In Jesus’ response, ‘treasure in Heaven’, not eternal life/Salvation, is equated with selling possessions and giving to the poor.

((CONT’D))

 

[nsper7]

CONT'D:

In Jesus’ response about it being difficult for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God/Heaven, it should be understood that wealth was considered a sign of God’s favor/blessing; thus, someone who was wealthy (i.e. the Pharisees or this young man) would have thought they had no need for Salvation (if you look at this young man or the Pharisees when they challenge Jesus, they assume they either already are Saved or that they can earn their Salvation through good works). The Disciple’s astonishment at Jesus’ words is especially understandable in light of the then commonly-held view that wealth was deemed a sign of God’s blessings.

Jesus’ answer to the question about who can be Saved seems to be the main point of this story/lesson: man cannot Save himself. In order to Save oneself, one would have to be ‘perfect’ and ‘good’ as God is and one’s righteousness would have to exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees (Matthew 5:20). Only God, through Jesus Christ, can Save us. The rich man never asked Jesus to Save him, he never threw himself onto the mercy and compassion of God. No, the man wanted to Save himself (‘what good thing can I do?’) and Jesus told the man how to do that: be perfect. The dichotomy of the passage is this: either Save yourself by being ‘perfect’ and ‘good’, which is impossible, or turn to God, through belief in Christ, for Salvation.

In the last part of the passage, Peter asks what they (the original Apostles) will get for their sacrifice. Notice that Jesus gives a two-part answer. The first part is specifically addressing the reward for the ‘original 12’, while the second part is addressing all who have given up things and people on account of Jesus. Now, there are two ways to interpret this second part of the promise. One way, as Spiess appears to do, is to view inheriting eternal life as a part of the reward for giving things up for Jesus’ sake, thus drawing a connection between the requirements of discipleship and the end-result of Salvation. The second option is to read the second part as saying that, besides inheriting eternal life (which they received through their belief in Jesus Christ), they will, as a reward for their personal sacrifices, receive a ‘hundredfold’ reward/repayment (notice that no mention is given of whether that repayment will be in our present life on earth or in our ‘afterlife’).

The problem with the first interpretation is that it contradicts Jesus’ own statements elsewhere. Throughout the rest of the Gospels, belief (pisteuo) is connected with receiving eternal life. Jesus never tells anyone else to give up anything in order to receive eternal life (note that the rich man in the preceding verses did not ask how to be Saved, he asked what ‘good thing’ he could do to be Saved and, after the man claimed that he followed the commandments, Jesus explained to the man how to be ‘perfect’). Thus, only the second interpretation fits with the other sayings of Jesus on how to receive eternal life (furthermore, the idea of their being different levels of reward for those who are Saved is repeated by Jesus in the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25:14-30 and echoed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15). On a side note, at least one person in the Gospels, Joseph of Arimathea, is described as wealthy and socially important, but also called a disciple of Jesus’ (Matthew 27:57, Mark 15:43, John 19:38).

I hope this is helpful. And again, please comment.

 

[drafdog]

It rather depends on what money is and what it is for.

I know JRKH seems offended by how much a man spent on a home, but consider how many people had jobs because of spending like that. Consider that it is a very efficient way to stimulate the economy.

Matthew

 

[nsper7]

Also, so no one accuses me of having an ulterior motive in my views, I did through (my deceased mother and maternal grandmother) inherit probably ~$500k in real estate and I have been wondering what to do with the money (when the property is sold, which could take several years). My current thinking is that it will go to help pay for Anglican/Episcopalian seminary (assuming I get through discernment and stuff).