How much Money should a Christian have?

[nsper7]

Is there any Church document that addresses the breadth of our responsibility? Obviously, a person is responsible for taking care of their family, their friends and those in the vicinity of where they live (i.e. Lazarus who lived at the gates of the wealthy man’s home).

What I mean is if we are required under pain of sin to use our resources to aide every single person we can, regardless of location, then it could be argued that we must all live lives of simplicity, but on the other hand, if we are only required to assist those in our proximity, then one could easily be wealthy and live a lavish lifestyle and still meet the needs of the poor in their community.

 

[nsper7]

BTW- JRKH, have you ever asked a Priest these questions? If so, how did he answer you?

 

[JRKH]

nsper7,
As always you raise good points.
No I have not talked to apriest about these questions because, well frankly, I never really thought about it. I’m sure he would give me answers similar to yours.

In an earlier post you had said, quite rightly, that only “religious” are required to take a vow of poverty which is quite true. These are people who are “Called by God” to such a life. I wondered what would happen if we flipped that coin over.
So - Do you think that there are People who are “Called by God”, to be wealthy and to give only what is “Required” to His service and retaining the rest for their own comfort and pleasure?

Another point - As I was pondering the “Church document” and "requirement: issue - is that such documents spelling out certain “requirements” are designed to establish certain “minimums” and guidelines. The Church, I am sure, faces the same issues we do here in trying to discuss this because every case, in every country, is different.
The image came to me of how “crowded” it will be just inside the gates of heaven - like the back of church - with those who “just make it in” by doing the minimum. Personally I like to sit further up in Church, and feel the same way about “doing the minimum” so as to “avoid sin”.

It is my feeling that we ARE all called to lead simple lives. You said above:
*What I mean is if we are required under pain of sin to use our resources to aide every single person we can, regardless of location, then it could be argued that we must all live lives of simplicity, but on the other hand, if we are only required to assist those in our proximity, then one could easily be wealthy and live a lavish lifestyle and still meet the needs of the poor in their community. *
If we take responsibility for only, “those in our proximity”, then by living our, “wealthy and lavish lifestyle” we can very easily insulate ourselves from the most needy. After all Lazarus may have been able to sit outside teh “rich mans house” in biblical times, but today he would be arrested as a vagrent and jailed.

I do think that we need to start with those “in proximity” tempered by an understanding of “relative need”. For instance, here in the US, there are many social programs while in other countires such programs are non-existant. So where is the greater need? This is one way of looking at the issue.
Another way is to say, yes “charity starts at home” so we should look at our own doorstep first. But - should we stop at our own doorstep if we have the resources to go further? There is little doubt that each of us could easily find needs that required attention without travelling very far.

Is a boat, or bigger car, or vacation home, or whatever, worth the cry of homeless children?

Christ tells us that what we do will be measured back to us.

Perhaps, as you say, doing the minimum is all that is required and doing more is not necessary for salvation. But we are called to be “perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect”. We also know that when we die, all of our works will be tested and,
“13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” (1 Cor 3)
So perhaps doing the minimum will get us into heaven, but certainly not before much “burning” in order to remove the imperfections.

Understand - I can’t point any fingers because I have been an awful sinner, in this regard as well in many others. I just know that I am currently undergoing a long and difficult “spiriutal” surgical procedure that might be called a “plankectomy”.
I am greatful for the patience of everyone who has contributed to this thread.

Peace
James

 

[DHC1Chipmunk]

What difference does it make? The more money we have, the more we can responsibly give!

 

[JRKH]

What difference does it make? The more money we have, the more we can responsibly give!

Personally I would amend this statement to read, “The more money we get, the more money we can responsibly give”.

The “more money we have” means the more money we did not “give” in months, years, past. The more money we "give, means the less money we “have” and the more our reliance is on God to provide for our daily needs.

Peace
James

 

[prodromos]

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.

As Christians I believe our attitude should be that whatever money or possessions we have, all belongs to God and we are merely stewards of the same.

John

 

[JRKH]

As Christians I believe our attitude should be that whatever money or possessions we have, all belongs to God and we are merely stewards of the same.

John

Amen to that.

And as good stewards we should not possess anything that does not bring glory to the Master, nor should we use the master’s money in any way that does not bring Glory to the master.

Peace
James

 

[DHC1Chipmunk]

Personally I would amend this statement to read, “The more money we get, the more money we can responsibly give”.

The “more money we have” means the more money we did not “give” in months, years, past. The more money we "give, means the less money we “have” and the more our reliance is on God to provide for our daily needs.

Peace
James

I agree! I should have used “get” instead of “have.” Thank you! This clarifies my meaning. Have a great weekend.

 

[Glassman96]

Quote: “In an earlier post you had said, quite rightly, that only “religious” are required to take a vow of poverty which is quite true. These are people who are “Called by God” to live such a life.”

Living a life of poverty doesn’t always mean to be living shoeless, have one garmet and living in a 6 x 9 stone cell. It’s about stripping oneself of all wants and living as minimal as one can, like moderating oneself to only the essentials to live your life in a productive and righteous manner. Basically a simple life and not attached to worldly things. You want to bring glory to God and disregard the pleasures of the flesh.

 

[nsper7]

Living a life of poverty doesn’t always mean to be living shoeless, have one garmet and living in a 6 x 9 stone cell. It’s about stripping oneself of all wants and living as minimal as one can, like moderating oneself to only the essentials to live your life in a productive and righteous manner. Basically a simple life and not attached to worldly things. You want to bring glory to God and disregard the pleasures of the flesh.

But is this necessary for Salvation? After all, according to the Church, obedience to the evangelical counsels is not necessary for Salvation.

 

[JRKH]

But is this necessary for Salvation? After all, according to the Church, obedience to the evangelical counsels is not necessary for Salvation.

Lets remember that this thread is about how much money should a christian have, not about how much they are allowed. These are two very different things as you have rightly pointed out.

Christ pointed out how difficult it is, “for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”. (Mt 19:24)
Not impossible, mind you, but difficult.
Christ also calls us to “seek first the Kingdom of God”, (Mt 6:33) and not worry about what we are to eat, drink or wear, (Mt 6:31)
Christ also calls us to become, “perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48)

Are not the evangelical councils and other documents of the Church designed to support the teachings of Christ as recorded in the NT? Surely they are not designed as subtitutes for the teachings of the NT. Surely these teachings cannot stand in opposition to what is written in the NT. That would be unthinkable.

The center of your argument is what is necessary for salvation, and in this regard, the even the story of the rich young man does not close the door of salvation on the wealthy. The only reason the subject of wealth came up is because the young man asked what else he must do besides obey “The Law”. So if we look at “what is necessary for salvation” we know that belief, faith, trust, obedience to God’s Church, these are all necessary for salvation.
But to be “perfect” - To Love God with everything we have, - That is the goal. That is what we are called to and for that we must go beyond “what is required for salvation”.

I just realized I think why this “required for salvation” argument piques me so. I think it is because it smacks of the worker who does only what is required to not get fired. Who cares little or nothing about the quality of his work, or the good of the company, and by extention, his fellow workers. I’ve met many of these types over the years.
Perhaps it is also my many years as a quality professional, both as an inspector and as a manager, that causes me to reject anything that smacks of “minimal effort” in order to “squeek by”. A lot of companies fail because too many people feel that doing the minimum, just what is required, is sufficient.

Peace
James

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I remain wary of the wording of such questions.

“Should?” According to whom?

Usually, the answer runs something like, “Twenty percent less than** I** think you should be allowed to have.”

And there can indeed be a holier-than-thou attitude in the very question—though I do not refer to anyone specific. Again, this is a philosophical question of a general nature.

And trying to answer this question is like trying to determine the number of angels dancing on any particular pinhead.

 

[JRKH]

I remain wary of the wording of such questions.

The purpose of the question is simple. To promote discussion and prayerful reflection. The wording reflects taht purpose.

“Should?” According to whom?

I suppose according to God as received through the teachings of Christ and His Church as well as through the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit in the heart of each individual Chrisitan.

Usually, the answer runs something like, “Twenty percent less than** I** think you should be allowed to have.”

What is your answer?

And there can indeed be a holier-than-thou attitude in the very question—though I do not refer to anyone specific. Again, this is a philosophical question of a general nature.

I hope that I have not come off as “holier than thou”. If I have I apologize most humbly. Such has never been my intent, for I am a sinner and must rely soley on God’s grace and on His mercy.

Philosophical discussions are not a bad thing. Especially if they leas to real and tangible improvement in the spiritual lives of those participating or even just “Listening in”.

And trying to answer this question is like trying to determine the number of angels dancing on any particular pinhead.

Quite, and yet I have gotten much out of the discussion. I hope others have as well.

 

[nsper7]

Are not the evangelical councils and other documents of the Church designed to support the teachings of Christ as recorded in the NT? Surely they are not designed as subtitutes for the teachings of the NT. Surely these teachings cannot stand in opposition to what is written in the NT. That would be unthinkable.

You mean the evangelical counsels. Obviously, the Ecumenical Councils are authoritative, but that is different from the evangelical counsels. There is nothing in opposition to the NT since only the Church can authoritatively interpret the NT.

The Church has interpreted that Christ’s words to the rich young man about selling all he has, etc. are not required for Salvation, but only the keeping of the Commandments. Who are you to challenge the authority of the Church?

The center of your argument is what is necessary for salvation, and in this regard, the even the story of the rich young man does not close the door of salvation on the wealthy. The only reason the subject of wealth came up is because the young man asked what else he must do besides obey “The Law”. So if we look at “what is necessary for salvation” we know that belief, faith, trust, obedience to God’s Church, these are all necessary for salvation.
But to be “perfect” - To Love God with everything we have, - That is the goal. That is what we are called to and for that we must go beyond “what is required for salvation”.

I just realized I think why this “required for salvation” argument piques me so. I think it is because it smacks of the worker who does only what is required to not get fired. Who cares little or nothing about the quality of his work, or the good of the company, and by extention, his fellow workers. I’ve met many of these types over the years.
Perhaps it is also my many years as a quality professional, both as an inspector and as a manager, that causes me to reject anything that smacks of “minimal effort” in order to “squeek by”. A lot of companies fail because too many people feel that doing the minimum, just what is required, is sufficient.

Why should I want to do anymore than is necessary for Salvation? My faith journey has been one nervous breakdown after another and much of it has been based on fear of Hell.

 

[JRKH]

You mean the evangelical counsels. Obviously, the Ecumenical Councils are authoritative, but that is different from the evangelical counsels. There is nothing in opposition to the NT since only the Church can authoritatively interpret the NT.

The Church has interpreted that Christ’s words to the rich young man about selling all he has, etc. are not required for Salvation, but only the keeping of the Commandments. Who are you to challenge the authority of the Church?

I am no one - Nor do I, a sinner, presume to challenge The Church.
However, in listening to The Church and in Listening to My Lord in my own heast, I cannot help but wonder why anyone would not wish to do the greatest good, that is to do the Most they can instead of just, “what is required”.

Why should I want to do anymore than is necessary for Salvation? My faith journey has been one nervous breakdown after another and much of it has been based on fear of Hell.

Ah my friend. Thank you for sharing this.
The reason one wishes to do more is because one Loves God, not because one fears hell. Fear is the beginning of wisdom - but only the beginning. The fruition of wisdom is Love. Filial, spousal Love between God and ourselves. When this point is reached, then there is no fear.
Example: A man Loves his wife. He wishes to please her and give her all that he can. He speaks kindly to her and if he offends her in any way, he apologizes, not because he is afraid she will leave him, but because he loves her and desires her to never be unhappy. He even seeks out the highest paying job he can in order to provide her with more.
IN short he does, not the minimum required of him to maintain the marriage, but the maximum he is able to because of his Love for the person he is married to.

This is how it should be with us. We should not seek to do only that necessary to maintain the marriage (salvation) out of fear of loss. Rather we should do all we can to grow in the marriage (our relationship with God) out of Love.

If you wish to grow in this love and drive out fear, I can think of no better book to begin with than the one in my signature.

Peace
James

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Father Corapi says, “Fear is a start.”

It’s because people do not FEAR displeasing God that we have this government, this pagan society, this Deathcare.

I’m all for fear, properly directed.

 

[JRKH]

Father Corapi says, “Fear is a start.”

It’s because people do not FEAR displeasing God that we have this government, this pagan society, this Deathcare.

I’m all for fear, properly directed.

Yes - fear is a start. But a faith built only on fear is a weak faith that misses much of the beauty that God has to offer.

The mystic doctors of the Church point out that most all begin with this fear but that true growth overcomes, that is drives out fear with love.

First we fear punishment
Then we begin to Love, but it is a Love based on a promised return,
Later We Love with spousal Love He who we wish to be with forever.

So - in the beginning we are seeking to avoid something. We are not running to God as much as running away from hell. Later, as we grow to Know God and begin to feel His Love in our lives, our fear of hell lessens but our fear of God remains. Finally as we grow into filial Love, fear disapates and we Live only for His Love in us.
Few reach this final stage, I am much nearer the start thant he finish, but already I fear hell less than I fear offending God. I ask for His guidance, not to avoid punishment but to draw nearer to Him and His plan for me.

Yes - Fear is the beginning, but only the beginning…

Peace
James

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

This is in no way personal or directed against anyone, but I take exception to the assumptions behind the original question itself (or any such ‘amount’ question, be it money, children, et cetera).

The hidden clause behind questions of this nature is often, ‘You have more money/children than I do and I don’t want you to have that much.’

Here, I think, we can fall into Satan’s trap. One individual has no right to dictate to another these things.

The instant someone puts a limit on ‘enough’, even leaving out an actual amount, but suggesting a smaller house, an economy car, a ‘reasonable’ family, you lay yourself open to control by those who have no legitimate authority to do so. Like Caesar. Like a jealous neighbor. Like a Gaia-worshipper.

How much? How many? What limits? There can be no answer. And the Church has very wisely declined to do so.

 

[JRKH]

This is in no way personal or directed against anyone, but I take exception to the assumptions behind the original question itself (or any such ‘amount’ question, be it money, children, et cetera).

The hidden clause behind questions of this nature is often, ‘You have more money/children than I do and I don’t want you to have that much.’

This is at least the second time that you have stated what is “often hidden” in such questions. I said before and I will say again that there is no such motive in my question. Such a thought never entered my mind as I considered starting the thread.

Here, I think, we can fall into Satan’s trap. One individual has no right to dictate to another these things.

I agree.
That is why you will note that I have been very careful NOT to dictate anything.

The instant someone puts a limit on ‘enough’, even leaving out an actual amount, but suggesting a smaller house, an economy car, a ‘reasonable’ family, you lay yourself open to control by those who have no legitimate authority to do so. Like Caesar. Like a jealous neighbor. Like a Gaia-worshipper.

And yet in todays society we seem to be controled by the antithesis of this. Instead of being told what is too much we are told that there is never enough. Newer cars, bigger houses, (heaven forbid two children should share a bedroom), big screen TV’s (when there is practially nothing on), and so on etc. ad nausium…
Your concern about a fall into Satans trap seems more likely in this way than in the other, and I fear that many do.

How much? How many? What limits? There can be no answer. And the Church has very wisely declined to do so.

I possitively agree. But if this thread has cause even one person to reconsider how they use their money - for the Glory of self or the Glory of God, then it has been worth it.

 

[nsper7]

‘Should’ is one of the most dangerous words in the English language methinks for it relies on guilt and a person’s subjective feelings to attempt to motivate. I think in terms of discussing issues of morals, it is best to stay in the objective realm.

It is better I think to I think address the minimums and then let people decide from there. Issues of sin do not rightly address what a person should do, but instead what they must or are forbidden to do.