Wealth

JUSTIN M. LASSER

From time immemorial Orthodox Christianity has struggled to harmonize the stringent ethical demands of the Lord (not least as they relate to personal econo­mies) with the material realities of life in the world. Jesus’ demands upon the wealthy are manifested paradigmatically in his encoun­ter with arich man (Lk. 18.18–25). The rich man wanted to know what he should do in order to inherit eternal life. He felt he had fulfilled all of the commandments but, Jesus told him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven: then come follow me.” But when the rich man heard this startling demand of Jesus he went away despondent. Jesus responded by saying, “How hard it is for those who have wealth to enter into the Kingdom of God! Indeed, 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.” Such is a stinging account of Christ’s view of wealth.

The gospels at many instances denounce wealth, such as the occasion of Zaccheus’ renouncing half his fortune, and paying back fourfold anyone he had cheated (Lk. 19.1–10). The severity of the gospel message concerning the necessary readiness to renounce wealth was sustained in the early apostolic era, as depicted in the Acts of the Apostles. In that time the followers of Christ held all things in common and “no one claimed private ownership” (Acts 4.32). Only Ananias and his wife Sapphira kept back some money privately from the sale of their property (Acts 5.1–11). St. Peter interprets such an action as the inspiration of Satan, and the death of Ananias and Sapphira soon after is lifted up as a mark of divine judgment against them.

In the post-apostolic period of the church this early attitude to wealth as a severe “problem” (a hard saying) is progressively relaxed. One can note four stages in a developing attitude to wealth in the wider church: first, the softening of these hard passages in patristic reflection (their “spiritual” exegesis); second, the abstraction of poverty and wealth from immediate economic realities and transmu­tation more into symbolic or “intentional” status; third, the institution of almsgiving as a redemptive force in wealth possession; and fourth, the use of public and private wealth, administered by both clergy and laity, in the service of the poor and in upbuilding the church’s philanthropic insti­tutions. It is important to note, however, that there have always existed specific Christian groups that did try to adhere to the radical ethical-economic demands of Christ without softening them, without realigning their apocalyptic bluntness in terms of the vicissitudes of “normal fiscal responsibility” in daily life. We can cite the instance of the early monks of Syria, the Ebionites, the Donatist Circumcellions, and the followers of Eustathius of Sebaste, as a few examples. The later Russian Non-Possessors are examples of similar tendencies in the church.

The softening of Jesus’ demands is readily apparent in Matthew’s transformation of the Beatitudes text “Blessed are the poor” into the version “Blessed are the poor, in spirit.” This minor variant opened the door to a variety of interpretations, to the effect that what was being called for was not literal poverty (or fiscal simplicity – living for the day) but a right attitude (of course, how attitude would manifest in right action was sometimes glossed over). Clement of Alexandria (2nd century) was one of the first theologians to respond reflectively to the issues of wealth and poverty for Chris­tians in Greco-Roman society. In his treatise

Who is the Rich Man that can be Saved? Clement asks: “What would there be left to share among people, if nobody had any­thing?” (Quis. Div. 13). Clement argued that the literal meaning of Christ’s call for poverty could not have been what he meant. It would be senseless if God intended all to be poor. Clement was responding to a larger community that was antagonistic toward the wealthy. Being in the minority of the literate middle-class intelligentsia, Clement was evidently concerned with legitimizing the possession of wealth, and does so on the philosophical basis of advocating a “detachment” from the allure of riches, on the moral basis of adopting a simple (non-excessive) lifestyle, and on the biblical basis of symbolic (typological) rather than literal interpretation of the Scriptures. Origen of Alexandria would follow him in all three things, and establish this as the church’s standard intellectual approach in later ages. Following the author of the Shep­herd of Hermas Clement advocated the divine economy of “redemptive almsgiv­ing.” The terms of this economy are that the wealthy were to use their resources in the service of the poor, and would receive in return the intercessions of the poor who prayed for them. This approach, unfortu­nately, tended to justify the chasm that existed in antique society between rich and poor, by obscuring it. Clement sees it as a solution, an alternative economy: “What beautiful trade, what divine business! One buys incorruptibility with money, and by giving the perishable things of the world one receives an eternal abode in exchange” (Quis. Div. 32).

Clement stood at a transition point when for the first time, perhaps, a notable element of the church had excess wealth. For most of its existence, even now perhaps, the Orthodox Church has been chiefly com­posed of the poor (or relatively poor). The institution of redemptive almsgiving may partially succeed in reconciling the wealthy and intellectual elite with the overwhelming majority of the church’s community of the poor, but the tendency of theologians to abstract and spiritualize the term of poverty has tended to lead not to the liberation of the poor but rather to specious justifica­tions of their being (and remaining) poor. The best aspects of Orthodox thought on wealth and poverty have tended to stress the supreme generosity of God as common Father of men and women in the world, and to speak of the duty of philanthropy (especially to the suffering) as a necessary characteristic of a true disciple. The church has not always been so successful in elevat­ing systematic ideas about wealth and its just distribution in society, preferring often an individual perspective.

The problem with constructing a work­able modern Orthodox theory of wealth and poverty, built out of biblical or patristic sources and principles, is that the ancient authorities of the church always speak from a particular period in which they were located. In Antiquity there were vast dispar­ities between a tiny minority of the wealthy and a mass of poor. In modern economies the terms of transaction have changed so vastly that new iterations are called for to clarify the perennial Christian principle of philanthropy (love for the neighbor as the mode of one’s love for God) and how it can apply in modern society. In Orthodox theology, from ancient times, the bishop has always been the particular spokesman for, and defender of, the poor. A genuinely Orthodox response to the challenges posed on Christians by poverty, and by the pos­session of wealth or the desire to acquire it, can be offered in the lives of the saints, especially in those many who were the noted advocates of the poor. St. John Chry­sostom has always been one to whom Orthodox turn for such an example. He expressed the problem, and the great

Christian challenge it contains, in the fol­lowing words: “If you cannot remember everything, instead of everything, I beg you, remember only this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is the same as theft from the poor and depri­vation of their means of life. It is not our own wealth that we are clinging on to, but theirs” (Second Sermon on Lazarus 55).

SEE ALSO: Charity; St. John Chrysostom (349–407)

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Holman, S. R. (2001) The Hungry are Dying: Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Holman, S. R. (ed.) (2008) Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

John Chrysostom, St. (1984) On Wealth and Poverty, trans. C. P. Roth. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.