Mark Driscoll has a well written parable that seeks to make the point that we should not feel guilty about enjoying God's good gifts.
I don't doubt that there are people that fail to celebrate God's good gifts (1 Timothy 4:4) in the way that Mark illustrates in his parable. Mark has been a pastor a lot longer than I have. Maybe there are people out there saddled with guilt about their possessions who are endlessly introspective about how they use their money. I'm sure they are out there, but I have yet to meet one in my 30 years of being a Christian.
Maybe I am the only one, but if I honestly diagnose my heart, I know that my tendency is not to reject all the good gifts of God because I fear idolatry or because I feel guilty about needy people in the world. It is rather to lean towards making those good things that God has given into God things. It is to embrace those things at the expense of God.
Again, I don't doubt that there could be a problem in the way that Mark outlines here but I believe, on the whole, we are light years away from erring on that side of things and my own heart and Christian experience seem to confirm that.
Once we have our churches giving 50% of their income for the sake of unreached people groups, and once we have thousands of people from the US dying each year at martyrs, and once I hear about thousands of people donating cars to single moms, and once I see the orphan crisis eradicated, and once I hear about people selling their property and giving it to the church (Acts 2:45), and once I see our people handing over loads of cash for the sake of financing church planting, then I might believe we could be running into the danger of being motivated by poverty theology. But right now I don't buy it. But maybe your Christian experience is different than mine.
Here is the other angle: If you see someone who you think might be living with a poverty theology mindset, don't assume that they are living that way out of guilt or lack of joy in God's good gifts. Maybe they are living that way because they believe it is the path to the greatest joy. They are not burdened by the weight of guilt but are rather empowered to be like the man in Matthew 13:44: "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field."
Sure, many people are reading David Platt, John Piper, and Francis Chan books. They make bold statements about money and how we use it. But of everyone who I know who has read those books and responded in "radical" ways, none of those people seemed burdened by guilt but rather seem quite joy-filled and free to give in ways the world does not understand for "it is more blessed to give than receive" (Acts 20:35).
Again, I think the solution is not found in the rejection of "poverty theology" or embracing "health and wealth" theology. It's found in focusing on the Gospel of Jesus that leads us toward contentment and generosity. More on that here.
I would love your feedback. Again, I could be totally off base here.
5 comments:
i concur! :) thanks for your angle
Totally agree with this. God has put this issue on my heart in recent weeks. As a returning missionary/church planter to the Middle East, I immediately came back and felt really judgemental of the American church. God worked through my sin issues and after a year, I'm starting to have a better grasp on it with more humility and wisdom.
I agree with what you said about how few people ever being guilted or burdened by a poverty theology. The reality is that America is a millionaire's club (not because we have a lot of millionaires but because in comparison to the whole world, we're all millionaires). When billions are yet to hear the Gospel and living in poverty, it certainly seems strange to indulge and "enjoy the gifts God has given". If we are messengers of his gospel on this earth and waiting for the city that is to come, then we should live as people that seem heaven-minded in how we spend our money, time and resources.
You nailed this one.
love that comment from anonymous too.... so i've been thinking about this more since i read it and i thought of another point or possible angle and/or problem..... at least it's one of my problems
going back to discoll's parable... sometimes i feel suspicious of gifts... like unwilling to accept they are from God and/or for me... it'd be like the bike was sitting in my room one morning with a bow and my name on it... but i don't know who it is from...
maybe it doesn't work to well with the bike, but more with health.... for instance, waiting on some medical reports and they come back good... of course i'm glad.. may thank God... but is this a 'gift'... b/c what if it had come back bad... still from God? sure, just would need a different perspective...
so... this was confusing.. but it's kind of like theologically i've tried to get so far away from the prosperity gospel that i have a hard time accepting 'gifts' as gifts..... just musing here
I'm with you, Z.
I also agree with you, Anonymous, and I appreciate your article, Z.
I, personally, was offended by Driscoll's portrayal of what I guess to him is someone embracing a "poverty theology" (i.e. the child given the bike). The depiction makes them come across as childish (they do take the role of a child, afterall), naive, ignorant, and stupid. It basically mocks their convictions as shallow, legalistic, and not very well thought out. Meanwhile the 'enlightened', well-versed theology student (played by the father) chastises the child and teaches him the supposed moderate, grace-filled doctrines about have and enjoying the possessions you have.
The first problem is that Jesus teaches quite the opposite about our possessions and everything else we've been given, such as in "The Parable of the Talents." The Bible explains that possessions are tools that need to PRIMARILY be put to work to evangelize, heal, bless, free, restore, others. If God gives us material possessions it's to help others, not just for us to play with like a giddy child. Secondly, Driscoll doesn't acknowledge free-will as the function by which most of us come into material possessions. Yeah, God gives us health, rain, sun, etc. without any effort on our part, but most of the tangible things we own (along with our accomplishments) didn't just fall out of the sky but God allowed us to acquire them through our efforts. So, the image of a father just giving us a bike (i.e. a luxury, entertainment item) is a bit far-fetched to me; it's more likely that we have our toys because we went out and bought them with the money that we earned from the job we work at. If true religion is about looking after orphans and widows (James 1:27) why use our free-will acquiring and playing with our toys? Sure, God allows us to buy toys for ourselves but that doesn't build the kingdom. Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial, as Paul wrote.
More than anything this parable seems to be a reaction to legalistic, grace-less Christianity. Unfortunately, I think it is pretty tainted with the same individualistic, American sense of entitlement and comfort that the Prosperity Gospel espouses. Driscoll is trying to be moderate (I think) but he's still leaning pretty hard to one side.
Post a Comment