Affluance and Spirituality
It is a widely held belief that possessing a surfeit of material possessions is at odds with living a Christian life. In fact, even beyond Christiandom, asceticism is widely held to facilitate a more spiritual life in most belief systems.
I would guess that most people in the UK, US and similar places would define affluence in terms of either recreation or idle assets. Expensive forms of recreation -yachts, polo, sport aviation, high-end travel -- have long been a hallmark of the very rich. Similarly, the ability to possess idle assets - multiple houses, extra cars, closets full of clothes worn once - is a defining characteristic.
I think that most religious people on here would agree that owning a couple of yachts is inconsistent with a fulfilling spiritual life. (There are a few libertarians who may muster an argument that poor people are helped more by spending money maintaining a yacht than by a direct handout, though I doubt if anyone would be convinced).
More difficult to evaluate critically is the average middle class lifestyle. Statistically, most people with degree level education have little savings, no yacht, no beachfront home. Yet what is now considered a modest house has three or more bedrooms, multiple bathrooms, two living rooms, a two car garage; most families have two cars as a necessity of their location. Other once luxuries such as mobiles, laptops, internet connections and dishwashers are considered must haves. In short, full participation in a typical middle-class community is costly.
So what response do people think is appropriate, aside from individual asceticism for those who are called to it? I would read with particular interest those replies that address couples with children, since the mobility, health, etc., of a single fella living alone like myself makes the question trivially easy to answer.
Mani Hussain Sat 15/11/08 20:49
To subscribe to this question you need to
sign in to the AnswerBank or register
if you are not already a member. All you need is a valid email address to register.
|
|
Are you saying that anyone who has lived and earned these things through honest hard work, ambition and perseverance may not be classed as a good Christian?
If people looked at my house, my cars, my bike, my boat, my TVs, appliances, my holidays and expensive hobbies and determined that all these factors meant I was not a good Christian, I would probably think of them as a loon. Firstly for assuming I was a Christian in the first place – I don’t advertise – and secondly for being rather presumptuous that wealth and possessions are the preserve of non-Christians.
These possessions do not define how I act, or how I contribute to society. They do not affect my spirituality, faith or belief. They do not define me as a person nor of particular status.
|
|
|
It is said that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom Of Heaven ...
so that's Cliff Richard b*ggered for a start!
|
|
|
I think it depends on what you mean by a 'good Christian'.
Certainly you can be kind, charitable and honest and have material possessions and there is not particularly any conflict in that.
However the question that struck me thinking about Mani's question is whether you can truly be a 'follower of Christ' (the definition of a Christian?) with these material possessions. I think its inconsistent with biblical teaching regarding the accumulation of wealth and possession to have a surfeit of such goods and still have some sort of spiritual integrity.
Its true that wants have become needs - you only need to look at the news at the minute to see that - and I think its a balance we all have to struggle with on an ongoing basis. Perhaps when we've taken your eye off what's a luxury and what's a necessity, or we stop being willing to look at deprivation, or we find we are not giving, not serving .... then the lifestyle is coming before walking the faith.
|
|
|
Well when the Vatican sells of its chattels and opens its rooms to the homeless, I shall review my own inconsistencies by following their example.
Andy, I should think Cliff might like it that way.
|
|
|
Not funny Andy Hughes. Cliff Richard has set a shining example to humanity for years.
YOU (nor I) do not know what he does with his money. YOU (nor I) do not know how he conducts his life and private affairs.
And the extremely thinly disguised jibe was offensive.
|
|
|
Question Author
Andy Hughes and Octavious - You should both be ashamed of yourselves. Cliff Richard is a dignified and private man, he deserves better than the two of you making sick jibes and slandering him on the internet.
|
|
|
To be honest Mani, and knowing Cliff as I do, I doubt he would give two tootles of a fairys whistle what we thought.
|
|
|
I think Maypole has come close to the crux of the matter. Most who call themselves Christians do not follow Christ. They follow a fabricated religion created by St Paul.
|
|
|
Not heard of cultural Christians then naomi?
|
|
|
Not really sure what your point of view is here Octavius.
You seem to identify yourself as a Christian but suggest you would be insulted if people identified you as such.
You imply your spirituality is governed from the inside but then drag in the Catholic church as a bad example as soon as that is challenged.
And then I think you are contradicting Naomis point that many people labelled Christians are more of the religion-following ilk rather than the walking-in the-footsteps types. But to DISprove her point you bring in "cultural christians" who surely by definition are at best religion-followers.
??
|
|
|
Question Author
Okay time for me to put in my two pennies worth;
Some things once regarded as luxuries are now commonly necessities. When once owning a car was a luxury (and in cities today still is), for those in a remote areas without public transport and with less of a ready-made network of a supportive community, or in able to carry out certain jobs a car (or in some cases two cars for a couple) is an essential.
When once families lived cheek by jowl and people rarely moved from their home town, the internet (had it existed) would have seemed a frivolous luxury: now, especially for many elderly more-or-less housebound people far from their offspring, it's more like a necessity. There are many other similar examples.
There are also many examples, in Christian history, of saints and ascetics undergoing the most testing hardships and deprivations. That, IMHO, is the calling of certain people, maybe only at certain times. Most of us are not called to such extremes. Jesus certainly knew how to enjoy life, to party, to eat and drink. We've also got a responsibility to our children and dependents, not to wilfully deprive them of what makes for their well-being - education, security etc.
So I think that their is conspicuous and extravagant consumption that seems far from consistent with Christian moderation, and especially in this ecologically-aware age, is criminally wasteful. But there is also a rightful enjoyment of the good things of the earth.
Like with most things, there is no easy answer or simply guideline that applies to everybody in every possible situation.
|
|
|
Maypole...
You seem to identify yourself as a Christian but suggest you would be insulted if people identified you as such.
Not true, my sentiment here was that I would be insulted if people decided (odentified if you wish) I was a bad Christian because of my possessions.
You imply your spirituality is governed from the inside but then drag in the Catholic church as a bad example as soon as that is challenged.
Are the Vatican not one of the leading advocates of Christianity in the world? So why not identify them? My spritiuality certainly does come from within, it was merely a response to the spiritual/materialistic hypthesis posed. If its good enough for the Vatican to own vast wealth, then why not me?
And then I think you are contradicting Naomis point that many people labelled Christians are more of the religion-following ilk rather than the walking-in the-footsteps types. But to DISprove her point you bring in "cultural christians" who surely by definition are at best religion-followers.
Point taken, I was thinking of something else.
|
|
|
I agree the Vaticans position on a few issues is difficult to understand in the context of the very early church. When you think of how spontaneous it must have been, and how persecuted early Christians were is it strange to see how proscribed established churches can be and what a power base the Catholic church in particular is.
But really I think in, "If its good enough for the Vatican to own vast wealth, then why not me" you ask a rhetorical question.... or do you really think its OK and thereby are honestly questioning why you should not do the same?
|
|
|
Maypole….
The first paragraph of the question:
It is a widely held belief that possessing a surfeit of material possessions is at odds with living a Christian life. In fact, even beyond Christiandom, asceticism is widely held to facilitate a more spiritual life in most belief systems.
The Vatican represents my spiritual leadership in terms of structure and hierarchy. If by their example they can lead ‘good’ Christian lives, yet still sit on a power base and wealth of such magnitude one can only guess at, then I could do so on more modest means.
Of course Jesus’ teachings were about giving up worldly goods, submissiveness and living simple lives dedicated to the Father etc. My aunt is a Catholic nun who has dedicated her whole life and every penny she has been given or inherited to her Order. She is by virtue of her “sacrifices”, a better Christian than me. But my life was lead on a different course and God has guided me in a different way. That does not make me a bad Christian. Our actions define us, and as many believe, God sees into the heart and soul of the person and judges them on that basis.
|
|
|
Of course Christians are not following the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) but St Paul. Jesus used to greet people by saying “peace be upon you”. How many Christians do that?
I don’t think you can be branded a good or bad by just how much wealth do you possess. Its how you use these things make you good or bad.
One thing is right in Mani’s question that few people have made un-necessary necessities in life that they surely can do without. But again if these things are not stopping them from helping others then nothing wrong in it.
|
|
|
I dont at all accept that Aunt Nun is a better Christian than anyone else because of her sacrifices. She may be, she may not be, but I dont accept the cause and effect.
Surely its whats in your heart. It may not have been very much of a sacrifice at all for her, whereas me my iPod certainly would be ;o). The parable of the widows mite and all that....
I also dont really go for the idea of a better or worse Christian, isnt it closer to or further from God at any one time and I agree that lots of possessions can hinder that (but dont have to). But perhaps that is a Catholic concept - there has to be some scale to it in order to explain the role of purgatory.
But really, I just wondered if you meant it when you referred to the Vatican or if it was a deflection. No matter - its your business!
|
|
|
As you put it….
“I think its inconsistent with biblical teaching regarding the accumulation of wealth and possession to have a surfeit of such goods and still have some sort of spiritual integrity.”
Are you saying then that, potentially, I lack some spiritual integrity because of my (presumed) accumulated wealth? I know many people believe that of the Vatican also, but this is what you are saying aint it?
Just wondered at what point you draw the line at wealth and possessions in regards to a spirituality benchmark of ‘not so good, quite good, martyr.’
|
|
Advertising | Cadillac forums | MPAA | Mortgage | Gevalia
