How rich is "too rich"?

[ribozyme]

If I just invest in such a way that maximizes my portfolio value, what merit is there in that? Don’t the pagans do as much?

I suppose it maximizes one’s ability to do charity. I doubt George Soros can do his philantrophy without any money.

Also, it seems the best way one can charitably invest money is to invent in solar power R&D.

 

[drafdog]

All of Bengal Fan’s points do not indicate the possession of “too much” wealth. It only says that you have more than you need. On the other hand the Wisdom literature says that the man who is sufficiently wealthy that he no longer needs to devote his time to earning a living for himself and his family is blessed by the Lord, because he can then spend his time reading and discussing Torah with the elders and learned men of the city.
Having wealth does not mean that we have “too much,” but it does mean that we must be watchful regarding how we treat the wealth that we have.
Your post does not indicate a person who is greedy or overly impressed with wealth. You will probably learn how to handle money in a way that will benefit others. That’s all that God demands of us: do your best with what you have and trust in God’s mercy and forgiveness.

Matthew

 

[puzzleannie]

Hello everyone! I have a quick/general question for you all.
In the Bible, there are several passages that imply that if you are wealthy, you can never go to heaven.
~

I know of no verse that says this, although there are several that say or imply that it will be very hard for a rich person to enter heaven. “difficult” and “never” are two different things.

for the proper attitude on material wealth we need go no further than the beatitudes, and the various parables Jesus tells that deal with the wealthy, and with the behavior of those who have or desire wealth, and compare them to parables about the Kingdom.

 

[bengal_fan]

Read the story of Ananias and Sapphira again. Their sin was not that they didn’t give all the proceeds of the sale of property to the Early Church, their sin was that they lied and claimed they had given all the proceeds when in fact they hadn’t and it is implied they did all this in order to put on airs of righteousness. St. Peter even tells them that, prior to selling it, the property was theirs to do with as they pleased and that, after selling it, the proceeds were theirs to do with as they pleased. Their sin was lying to the Holy Spirit.

oh, i’ve read it plenty of times… and yes, their sin was lying. but everyone lies sometimes… even to God. so why doesn’t He strike us all down dead? it’s because of the potential outcome of thier lie.

the story has to be considered in light of the other things that were happening in the early church at the time (specifically look at the preceding chapters in acts). they shared everything. they made sure everyone had everything they needed. the ones who had more gave to the ones who had less so that they all had their needs met. the ate together, met together, devoted themselves to the teachings of the apostles, and this is the result: “the Lord added to their number daily, those who were being saved.”

the survival of others in the church was based on the ones who had more giving of their resources so that everyone’s needs were met. ananias and sapphira promised to contribute the proceeds of their sale. you are right that they didn’t have to do this, but once the promise was made, people’s live depended on it. by withholding some of the proceeds, they actually were putting others’ lives in danger (through not having enough food for everyone, etc.). it wasn’t that they lied, it was what they lied about and the possible outcome of their lie that was the issue

Notice that Jesus never told Lazarus to give up all his wealth either. To Zaccheus (a wealthy tax collector) all Jesus tells him is not to cheat people. Joseph of Arimathea’s wealth is never judged and he is explicitly called a disciple of Jesus (even though he is secretive and member of a high-level council).

but then look at how ALL of the believers behaved in the beginning of the book of acts. they gave up everything to the common good of the church. they had EVERYTHING in common. sure seems like the apostles knew what Jesus meant, and that was to be willing to give everything to the common good so that everyone has what they need.

I agree we sometimes think we need things that we don’t need (self-delusion), but is it okay to want things that we don’t need?

as long as that “want” doesn’t lead to bitterness or covetousness. i have no problem though in dreaming about things.

 

[nsper7]

I know of no verse that says this, although there are several that say or imply that it will be very hard for a rich person to enter heaven. “difficult” and “never” are two different things.

I do agree that, especially during the times Jesus preached during, wealth might have made it difficult to attain Salvation, but not for the reasons I think people posit today. In Pharisaic Judaism, wealth was always seen as sign of God’s favor (among good Jews at least) and, thus, someone who was very wealthy would have felt no need for a Savior or anything else because they would feel they were already justified. Look at the Rich Young Ruler, he seems to already think he is Saved (even claiming he has already obeyed all the commandments from youth). Notice that the conversation between Jesus and the Rich Young Ruler deals with being ‘good’ (which only God truly is), ‘perfect’ and having ‘treasure in Heaven’.

for the proper attitude on material wealth we need go no further than the beatitudes, and the various parables Jesus tells that deal with the wealthy, and with the behavior of those who have or desire wealth, and compare them to parables about the Kingdom.

The parables that deal with wealth address ‘treasure in Heaven’ which I think is different then Salvation (getting into Heaven). Also, the Sermon on the Mount, as a commentary on the Mosaic Law, I believe points to why we need a Savior, but I question whether the Beatitudes are to be interpreted literalistically.

After all, what does Jesus say in Matthew 5:48 (NKJV): “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect” and Matthew 5:20 (NKJV): “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

St. Paul makes this same dichotomy in Romans. The idea is that there are two ways to get to Heaven:

1. By your own merit (be righteous, perfect and good and completely obey the Mosaic law [the Commandments]) without the need of a Savior (this was almost the foundation for the Pelagian heresy: Jesus is reduced to merely a good teacher who shows humanity the ‘other’ way besides Adam’s way of sin and death but there is no redemptive quality to the death of Jesus), but this way is impossible (Romans 3:10, 1 John 1:10)
2. By accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior and trusting in His atonement sacrifice and believing that he died and was resurrected

 

[adstrinity]

If you are in the top 3% of the wealthy of the world, then, I would say that those in the top 2% are the ones who are TOO rich. …I’m probaly not the best person to ask, though.

I went to a Franciscan High School and University so, obscene amounts of money is probably not in my future, but, that doesn’t mean that I don’t wish I could have the house of my dreams. God uses some people who have money and some who don’t. There were some very wealthy saints who did God’s work who died very wealthy.

 

[nsper7]

oh, i’ve read it plenty of times… and yes, their sin was lying. but everyone lies sometimes… even to God. so why doesn’t He strike us all down dead? it’s because of the potential outcome of thier lie.

the story has to be considered in light of the other things that were happening in the early church at the time (specifically look at the preceding chapters in acts). they shared everything. they made sure everyone had everything they needed. the ones who had more gave to the ones who had less so that they all had their needs met. the ate together, met together, devoted themselves to the teachings of the apostles, and this is the result: “the Lord added to their number daily, those who were being saved.”

the survival of others in the church was based on the ones who had more giving of their resources so that everyone’s needs were met. ananias and sapphira promised to contribute the proceeds of their sale. you are right that they didn’t have to do this, but once the promise was made, people’s live depended on it. by withholding some of the proceeds, they actually were putting others’ lives in danger (through not having enough food for everyone, etc.). it wasn’t that they lied, it was what they lied about and the possible outcome of their lie that was the issue

What you say makes perfect sense and I can agree that one reason their lie was punished so harshly was because of the effect it had on others (although the question of whether they lost their eternal life is not answered).

However, you just agreed with me that they did not have to make the promise. Thus, to take it to modern times, it is the idea that if I make a promise to donate X amount of money/property/etc. to the Church or anything else (or I make any promise to anyone) I had better keep it. Also, even though St. Peter deflects the sin away from him (he claims they didn’t lie to him, but to the Holy Spirit) there is still the idea that trying to con one of the leaders of the Early Church in order to appear righteous is most detestable. It would be like me trying to con the Archbishop of Canterbury so that all of Anglicanism will commend me for my righteousness and generosity.

From what you said, it seems like we both agree on the message of the story. Ananias did not have sell the property and he did not have to give all the proceeds to the Church once he sold it, but he did have to honor his promises (which, in this case, involved donating the proceeds).

but then look at how ALL of the believers behaved in the beginning of the book of acts. they gave up everything to the common good of the church. they had EVERYTHING in common. sure seems like the apostles knew what Jesus meant, and that was to be willing to give everything to the common good so that everyone has what they need.

This event is recorded has happening only in the Jerusalem Church, which was impverished (Romans 15:26) and under heavy persecution; thus, to draw a general conclusion that is what is expected of all Christians would be to go beyond Scripture and even Roman Catholic teaching.

as long as that “want” doesn’t lead to bitterness or covetousness. i have no problem though in dreaming about things.

So, my question to you (and to everyone really) is at what point does our use of money (or other resources) to meet our wants become wrong? After all, St. Peter said, until it has been promised to use for a certain service, the money is ours to do with as we please. I think St. Paul would add that we must also use our resources to care for our families. And obviously, we should not be using our money to perpetrate a sin (hiring prostitutes, violating civil law, defrauding others, drinking to drunkenness, etc.) and that we are not sinning to attain our resources (theft, dishonesty, violating civil law, etc.).

Thus, it would seem to me the four questions for a Christian to ask are:

1. Have I already promised/‘vowed’ this resource that I am for a different purpose?
2. Is my family provided for?
3. Am I using this resource to knowingly sin?
4. Am I knowingly sinning in attaining this resource?

 

[bengal_fan]

(although the question of whether they lost their eternal life is not answered).

true

However, you just agreed with me that they did not have to make the promise.

but, from what it looks like in the early church, by not making the promise means you aren’t a part of the church. everyone else had everything in common.

Thus, to take it to modern times, it is the idea that if I make a promise to donate X amount of money/property/etc. to the Church or anything else (or I make any promise to anyone) I had better keep it.

under penalty of DEATH!!! lol

This event is recorded has happening only in the Jerusalem Church, which was impoverished (Romans 15:26) and under heavy persecution; thus, to draw a general conclusion that is what is expected of all Christians would be to go beyond Scripture and even Roman Catholic teaching.

i would agree it is to go beyond catholic teaching (i am not catholic so that is not a problem for me ), but i wouldn’t say it is going “beyond” scripture. i think scripture is giving us the example to aspire towards. the fact that “the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” is a clear indication they were doing something extremely right. what acts says they were doing was sharing everything and taking care of each others’ needs.

So, my question to you (and to everyone really) is at what point does our use of money (or other resources) to meet our wants become wrong?

that is the question

After all, St. Peter said, until it has been promised to use for a certain service, the money is ours to do with as we please.

but, in a sense, until we promise our lives to God, it is ours to do with as we please… that means we aren’t a part of God’s family if we are living with that attitude.

I think St. Paul would add that we must also use our resources to care for our families.

so where does who is in our family stop? ultimately we are all related. aren’t we all “children of God”? why is your child more important than the child on the street? i know why yours is more important to you, but not to God. and we are called to have the things of God in mind. it’s a challenging.

And obviously, we should not be using our money to perpetrate a sin (hiring prostitutes, violating civil law, defrauding others, drinking to drunkenness, etc.) and that we are not sinning to attain our resources (theft, dishonesty, violating civil law, etc.).

true

Thus, it would seem to me the four questions for a Christian to ask are:

1. Have I already promised/‘vowed’ this resource that I am for a different purpose?
2. Is my family provided for?
3. Am I using this resource to knowingly sin?
4. Am I knowingly sinning in attaining this resource?

i think we need another:

1. Does everyone else have what they NEED to live?

 

[ruslan]

Well, I can only do so much right now being a 18 year old high school student having to pay for college. I’m not completely sure if I’m in the top 3%, I just heard that anyone in middle-class North America is within the top 5% most wealthy of the world. Does anyone know maybe a percent of your wealth you are supposed to give according to the Church? Or a quote from the Pope?

This is a personal observation. If your family is that wealthy then paying for college shouldn’t be a problem. You should be able to focus on helping those in need.

 

[nsper7]

true

but, from what it looks like in the early church, by not making the promise means you aren’t a part of the church. everyone else had everything in common.

If being in the Church meant they HAD to share verything in common, then why would St. Peter have said there was no sin until the dishonesty?

And, again, this is described as occurring only in the Jerusalem Church.

under penalty of DEATH!!! lol

Well, Scripture warns there is the “sin unto death”, but either way, this does not address the issue of how much money a Christian should have, but the issue of honesty (if you make a promise to God, you had better follow through).

i would agree it is to go beyond catholic teaching (i am not catholic so that is not a problem for me ), but i wouldn’t say it is going “beyond” scripture. i think scripture is giving us the example to aspire towards. the fact that “the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” is a clear indication they were doing something extremely right. what acts says they were doing was sharing everything and taking care of each others’ needs.

I was merely bringing up the Catholic teaching issue in order to be more inclusive (gotta remember who the majority of our readers on this site are). But again, this only occurred in the Jerusalem Church, so what about everywhere else? (i.e. Rome, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, etc.)

that is the question

Thank you for that non-responsive response.

but, in a sense, until we promise our lives to God, it is ours to do with as we please… that means we aren’t a part of God’s family if we are living with that attitude.

This sounds like overspritualization. For one thing, ‘promising our lives to God’ is never given as a Scriptural means of Salvation/eternal life in the same way that ‘surrendering our lives to Christ’ (a great evangelical phrase) is never even mentioned in Scripture.

Looking at Scripture, I believe Salvation comes through:

1. Believing (better ‘trusting’) in Jesus Christ, esp. for Salvation (John 3:16, ‘trust’ that Jesus is who He says He is and can do what He says He can do is very important, cf. the story of the brazen serpent in Numbers 21:8-9)
2. Believing that Jesus was resurrected (Romans 10:9)
3. Confesssion (affirmation) that Jesus is Lord (basically, the word for ‘Lord’ here in Greek ‘kurios’ is not some spiritual ‘make Jesus the Lord of your life’ but is an affirmation that Jesus is God ‘kurios’ was used as a title for God in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testmant])
   ?4) Baptism and partaking of the Holy Eucharist (I am not totally sure how these two relate to Salvation; after all, we see at least one person, the thief on the cross, who is never baptized and never partakes of the Lord’s Supper, but is promised entry into Paradise, but the normal method seems to be baptism accompanying Salvation and Eucharist/Lord’s Supper occurring in all areas of the Early Church; further, as an Anglican, I support infant baptism w/ later Confirmation)
   ?5) Good works will follow as a fruit of belief (notice that throughout Church history, there have been people who bore great fruit but who were quite wealthy and lived nicely such as St. Edward the Confessor who was the King of England)

Examining Roman Catholicism, their view of Salvation is connected to:

1. Belief in Christ (obviously)
2. Baptism (along with later Confirmation and Eucharist) enter someone into Christ’s Church
3. Maintenance of Salvation is by not sinning and, when sin occurs, Sacramental Confession resolves mortal and venial sins and partaking of Holy Eucharist resolves venial sins

so where does who is in our family stop? ultimately we are all related. aren’t we all “children of God”? why is your child more important than the child on the street? i know why yours is more important to you, but not to God. and we are called to have the things of God in mind. it’s a challenging.

Look at the context and the linguistics. St. Paul is talking about immediate family (those in one’s household) and relatives (most likely spouse, children and parents, but also could include aunts/ uncles, cousins, in-laws, nieces/nephews, grandparents, etc.). Also, if people were more willing to help out their families (a failing in modern America where everyone expects the gov’t to provide for their elderly parents, etc.), then poverty would be greatly reduced (how many stories do we hear of the relatives of a wealthy person who live poorly though…shameful).

i think we need another:

1. Does everyone else have what they NEED to live?

By that definition, we should all be Franciscan monks or something (note that Anglicanism does have religious orders) since there is a great amount of poverty. Giving up property is only once required by Jesus (the Rich Young Ruler, whom I believe was a special case since he wanted to ‘earn’ his way to Salvation by being perfect and good as God) and the sharing of all possessions is shown only in the Jerusalem Church. In Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism, monasticism is viewed as a special calling (similar to a person who seek Holy Orders and such).

This is a personal observation. If your family is that wealthy then paying for college shouldn’t be a problem. You should be able to focus on helping those in need.

Who know? Maybe they are trying to teach her some form of responsibility by making her pay her own way. Also, even if they are paying for everything (tuition, room and board, supplies, etc.), that doesn’t mean she personally has money (she may have necessities taken care of, but not much money in-pocket).

 

[ruslan]

Who know? Maybe they are trying to teach her some form of responsibility by making her pay her own way. Also, even if they are paying for everything (tuition, room and board, supplies, etc.), that doesn’t mean she personally has money (she may have necessities taken care of, but not much money in-pocket).

Possibly.

 

[nsper7]

Now, I will add that (and I thought of this as I was reading Deuteronomy last night) there is a danger that can occur when someone become wealthy/prosperous:

1. They forget that their money was, in some shape or form, a blessing from God and they fall into pride feeling that they no longer need God (cf. the Babylonian king in the Book of Daniel who forgets that all power stems from God)
2. They go to almost the other extreme and feel that the money is a blessing from God and thus proves that they are already Saved/justified (cf. the Rich Young Ruler who, by his words, felt he was already justified by God)

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

i think 1 million a year is the maximum wealth anyone could justify. any more income should be given up for some charitable cause.

being obscenely rich seems like a bad thing to me.

1. By accepting Jesus Christ as your Savior and trusting in His atonement sacrifice and believing that he died and was resurrected

the bible is clear that the ordinary way to go to heaven is to be baptized and believe. to believe means we must obey the church and persevere in faithful obedience to the end.

it’s not a trick or about some secret knowledge. it’s about us cooperating with God’s grace so that we may partake of the divine nature. God doesn’t just cover our sins, but makes us heirs of his kingdom as adopted sons and daughters.

 

[nsper7]

i think 1 million a year is the maxium wealth anyone could justify. any more income should be given up for some charitable cause.

being obscenely rich seems like a bad thing to me.

One question, is it more important to donate to the Church (for me that would be Anglicanism for an RC it would be Roman Catholicism) or to the poor?

the bible is clear that the ordinary way to go to heaven is to be baptized and believe. to believe means we must obey the church and work out our salvation by faithful obedience to the end.

it’s not a trick or about some secret knowledge. it’s about us cooperating with God’s grace so that we may partake of the divine nature.

If you’ll notice, I listed the two ‘typical’ views on Salvation (the stereotypical Protestant Evangelical one and the Roman Catholic one), but in terms of obedience to the [Roman Catholic] Church, isn’t all that is required money-wise is the 10% tithe? Please correct me if I am wrong. Obviously, I know some take vows of voluntary poverty (often as part of becoming a religious…we have similar orders in Anglicanism).

 

[ribozyme]

One question, is it more important to donate to the Church (for me that would be Anglicanism for an RC it would be Roman Catholicism) or to the poor?

The poor… it will reduce more suffering. Simply deduction from utilitarian principles.

It is ok to be wealthy as long as you use your wealth to reduce suffering. I do not loathe George Soros for being wealthy, but he makes me abhor myself because I will never have the means to conduct charity on the scale that he could.

 

[nsper7]

The poor… it will reduce more suffering. Simply deduction from utilitarian principles.

It is ok to be wealthy as long as you use your wealth to reduce suffering. I do not loathe George Soros for being wealthy, but he makes me abhor myself because I will never have the means to conduct charity on the scale that he could.

Of course, and obviously, if I were wealthy (which I am not, I do have a inheritance of land from my maternal grandmother worth ~$500k, but it is in land, not liquid assets, and may not sell for years), I would donate to charity, etc., but one might argue donating to the Church (if it is a larger sect like Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism) would be more effective since they would know where the money is most useful (missionary work vs. setting up a parish in an impoverished area vs. sending food and supplies to the needy vs. restoring a ‘crumbling’ church edifice, etc.).

 

[ribozyme]

Of course, and obviously, if I were wealthy (which I am not, I do have a inheritance of land from my maternal grandmother worth ~$500k, but it is in land, not liquid assets, and may not sell for years), I would donate to charity, etc., but one might argue donating to the Church (if it is a larger sect like Anglicanism or Roman Catholicism) would be more effective since they would know where the money is most useful (missionary work vs. setting up a parish in an impoverished area vs. sending food and supplies to the needy vs. restoring a ‘crumbling’ church edifice, etc.).

I do not see how that is different from funding UN programmes or think tanks such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute which help the poor.

 

[nsper7]

I do not see how that is different from funding UN programmes or think tanks such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute which help the poor.

I have more faith in the Church than I do the UN or whatever. After all, if I trust the [Anglican] Church on spiritual matters (i.e. theology, liturgy, etc.), then shouldn’t I trust it on material matters?

EDIT: Also, unlike think-tanks and stuff, the Anglican Church is directly involved all over the world in charitable efforts and missions.

 

[goofyjim]

I always lived by a little prayer before I even read it in the Bible. Proverbs 30:8,9 Give me just the necessaries of life, neither wealth nor poverty.

 

[Maxply]

Couple of ideas:

(1) It’s possible to have TOO MUCH money.

(2) the more surplus (beyond basic needs and wants) you have, the more responsibility you have to spend or invest the excess wisely. Serious philanthropy is one way to do this: the nice thing in many philanthropic situations is that you get to call all or most of the shots and direct the money to places you’d like to see it go. . . but of course, it would behoove you to make educated and informed funding decisions.

(3) I read in a book recently that before modern times, the rich looked upon poor people as occasions to offer personal charity, as an opportunity to actually BE Christian. Nowadays, we have the agents and agencies of the welfare state. What’s lost is perhaps the opportunity for rich people to directly help out.

(4) Monetarist economists will tell you that wise investing serves important social purposes, and that wise investments deploy capital most efficiently. . . allowing society to get maximum benefits from your money. I’m not 100% sure this is true: go into any discount store and you find things like pickle-flavored corn chips or soy tea, weird products that failed on the market after millions were invested in them. There’s a lot of waste and duplication in capitalism, and perhaps this is why communism at one time sounded more rational. So I’m not so sold on any advice to “just invest” your money.

(5) If the OP is still reading this thread, she might ask whether having too much money could possibly be a bad thing. It could be seriously blinding one from many things, distort relationships, etc.

(6) I like what Andrew Carnegie did with the public libraries; this was a genuine contribution, one which has been lasting over generations.