Developing a Biblical View of Wealth
Rejecting Modern Asceticism
Listen to the audio narration of this article here.
Introduction:
When it comes to Christians’ view of money and material blessings, two errors predominate. On the one hand, there are the prosperity gospel charlatans. They portray God as a cosmic vending machine, who, upon the insertion of the coins of faith and self-affirmation, dispenses all desired material wealth.
On the other hand, there is a modern strain of asceticism running through evangelicalism which views money as a bad thing, or at best a dangerous but technically neutral thing. This second view, which in my estimation constitutes the overwhelming majority of evangelicals, is a doctrine just as unbiblical as the prosperity gospel, but far more subtle. Today, I would like to refute it and contrast it with the biblical doctrine of material blessing.
The Evangelical Ascetic View:
To most evangelicals, the heresy of the prosperity gospel (aka the word-faith movement) is easily perceivable. While I appreciate those evangelicals who have delivered forceful and effective critiques of this heresy, the modern quasi-ascetic view frequently held by them is problematic in its own way.
What is this modern quasi-ascetic view? Well, essentially, it regards material wealth with suspicion, and looks down on Christians who rigorously pursue it. It views the accumulation of these blessings as dangerous, selfish, and ungodly. That’s all very abstract, so let me illustrate it by quoting some popular evangelical/Reformed teachers.
John Piper, a tremendously influential man with a far-reaching ministry, on an episode of his “Ask Pastor John” podcast, entitled “Should I Invest for Retirement,” began by saying,
I want to bless those who lean away from big fat retirement accounts and big fat savings accounts. I want to bless the leaning away from those things and towards generosity and immediate-need-meeting. The reason I don’t think we can paint with a broad brush here and say that all savings and all investments are wrong is that it becomes extremely difficult to draw the line as to what is saving for the future and what is spending on a present need.
Notice first that Piper portrays saving money as being opposed to generosity as a baseline assumption. He gives no Scriptural or even logical explanation for this. But obviously, the more one saves and invests, the more they can be generous with at a later date. So savings are not at all opposed to charity; in fact, when one takes into account the time value of money, it actually bolsters generosity in the long term. Piper goes on to say,
I think of that like this: I don’t want to get rich. I don’t want to sit on a pile of money. I just want to be able to survive between the ages of sixty-five and eighty-five. And I’d like to be spent for the kingdom. So if I can have a house and have my bills paid and pour my life out for the kingdom, I would be thrilled.
Piper’s definition of “survival” includes a house, utilities, and what we might call a normal, middle-class life. But surely Piper could do with less, as millions around the world do. So why doesn’t he? Either it’s straight up hypocrisy, or, at some level, he realizes the impracticality of his advice. I believe it’s the latter, as he goes on to say:
But I know it’s stupid to not put some money away, because when trouble arrives I’m always scrambling to find a way to take care of the refrigerator that’s broken or the car that’s having issues. And I don't think it’s an honor to my wife to be careless about that. So, all that to say, put a governor on your life. Make as much as you can, give as much as you can, and save what you need to in order to be a responsible non-borrower. Then do retirement with some minimalistic plan that frees you up for gospel ministry till the day you drop.
Here, Piper tacitly recognizes that refusing to save for future needs, such as emergencies and retirement, is not actually generosity but selfishness, since it forces others to financially care for the non-saver. Furthermore, his idea of “gospel ministry” is vaguely defined. Presumably he would include funding local churches and mission work, but why isn’t saving a giant pile of money and passing it on to one’s children considered “gospel ministry”? The money required to afford children, homeschooling, Christian schooling, and proper parental investment in children doesn’t come out of thin air. Piper’s view is astonishingly shortsighted.
David Platt, another Big Eva darling, penned his 2010 book “Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream” on this very subject. In chapter 1 he says,
While Christians choose to spend their lives fulfilling the American dream instead of giving their lives to proclaiming the kingdom of God, literally billions in need of the gospel remain in the dark.
What is “fulfilling the American dream”? Measured materially, it would probably include owning a house, vehicle, having a few kids, and being able to send them to college. What exactly is wrong with these things Platt never explains, but notice what he sets up as its opposite: “giving [one’s life] to proclaiming the kingdom of God.” Proclaiming the kingdom is great, but what about building the kingdom? Why is it assumed that being a foreign missionary is a preferable way to serve the kingdom?
Likely, it has to do with a perennial error made by numerous heterodox Christian groups, which is to view the book of Acts as normative for the entire church. When we read about the harrowing exploits of Paul and his companions, and then assume every Christian is therefore called to do the exact same thing, we miss the point of the entire book. The whole point of Paul’s missionary journeys was to establish local churches, the members of which would continue to live their daily lives, but in a cleansed and transformed way. Paul never exhorts Christians to quit their jobs, sell their houses, and become missionaries.
Now let’s zoom out for a second and look at the way in which money and material wealth is being viewed here. Platt and Piper portray it as a sort of necessary evil which we are permitted to use, but only for necessities and “kingdom work,” and to dispose of it through those two channels as quickly as possible lest we – God forbid – accumulate a “pile” or “live the American dream.” But is this how Scripture portrays material wealth?
The Biblical View of Material Blessings
Going back to Genesis, God called His creation good and blessed man by giving him dominion over it. Lest one say sin’s entrance into the world completely ruined the goodness of the physical creation, God promises Israel physical blessing for covenant faithfulness (Deuteronomy 28:1-6):
And if you faithfully obey the voice of the Lord your God, being careful to do all his commandments that I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, if you obey the voice of the Lord your God. Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock. Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out.
Here God promises physical blessings for covenant faithfulness and obedience to His law (cf. Deuteronomy 8:18 & 28:47). Platt especially emphasizes Jesus’ statements “Take up your cross and follow me” and “Go, sell all that you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” What Platt misses is that Jesus is not saying every Christian must be a martyr but that we must, as Paul puts it in Romans 12:1, be living sacrifices. How else does Paul describe the ideal Christian life? “That we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Timothy 2:2). Likewise, he overlooks the immediate context in Jesus’ words to the rich young ruler, which were designed to show him how he fell short of the law, not a command for all Christians.
Jesus’ ministry certainly lampoons the abuse and idolatry of riches, but lest anyone relegate the principle of physical blessings for covenant faithfulness to the Old Testament alone, He reaffirms it in the words, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). Similarly, Paul’s analogy of sowing (giving) and reaping (being blessed by God) likewise reinforces the abiding validity of this pattern in the New Covenant as well. Again and again, Old Testament and New, Scripture shows material wealth to be a blessing. Faithfulness with this blessing results in even greater blessing while abuse of this blessing results in cursing. This is the pattern of the covenant which pietists and modern quasi-ascetics like Platt and Piper miss.
Conclusion
Some readers may wonder what the utility is in the 1,500 words I just spent attacking this pietistic doctrine of wealth. In other words, what’s the payout (pun intended)? One of the central failings of American Christianity is failing to shrewdly use our vast wealth to build Christian institutions. Pastors have continually told Christians to funnel their money into foreign missions or a thousand different charitable causes at home or portrayed pastors and missionaries as having a more Christ-centered calling than ordinary folks with normal jobs. This diverts funds and talent from building, say, a Christian grocery chain, technology company, etc. etc. Now, because of this mismanagement, we’re dependent on our enemies for everything. And recently, with vaccine mandates and censorship, Christians are finally beginning to feel the results of this folly.
But it’s not too late to begin building a Christian parallel economy, but to do so requires a radical shift in our view of wealth back to the biblical view. If we don’t view God’s blessings as blessings, we will squander them and face the consequences. However, if we value and intelligently use God’s blessings, we will be rewarded. As it is written, “He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.”
Editor’s Note:
This blog post was inspired by a shorter post on the Telegram channel, which I would encourage you to follow since I’m the most active there. Here are some other articles we’ve written on similar subject which you may also be interested in:
The Economics of Protestantism
The Ethics of Interest and Usury
Article by A.C. For more articles like this, join us on MeWe, Telegram, Gab, YouTube, or feel free to: