HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, September 18, 2024 – Institutional Christianity (a.k.a. the worldly church) spends a great deal of time and effort “helping the poor” and “less fortunate”. There seems to be not only a pervasive but unquestioned belief among worldly Christians that poverty is a bad thing that needs to be eradicated or at the very least urgently addressed and appropriate measures taken to mitigate it. But this approach to relieving poverty blatantly overlooks the fact that: 1) Jesus himself purposely chose to be poor during his powerful ministry years, and 2) Jesus taught his followers to divest themselves of their possessions and to follow his lead of living in poverty. Such a contradiction between the teachings of the Gospels and the efforts of the worldly church needs to be further investigated.

First of all – what is poverty? I’m not interested in the United Nations’ definition of the concept but in the lived experience of Jesus, as portrayed in the scriptures. Poverty, for Jesus, wasn’t something he arranged to happen; rather, poverty was the direct result of choosing to serve God and God only. It was life streamlined to the bare minimum of material goods required for day-to-day functioning, under the motto “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof”. All the energy that otherwise would be directed to securing daily needs can then be directed to serving God.

As I’ve pointed out before, Jesus was no prepper. He also wasn’t afraid to go hungry or to sleep rough when required. He famously got caught out on several occasions without enough food to feed himself or his followers, but when that happened, he called on God, and God either miraculously supplied the food (as in the miracles of the loaves and fishes) or used the situation as a teaching and prophecy moment (as in the unripened and then withered fig tree). Nowhere in the Gospels is Jesus described as soliciting donations to open a soup kitchen or run a food bank. What we do see is him advising his faithful followers not to worry about what they were to eat, drink, or wear, as God would provide for them.

Poverty, then, for Jesus, was a preferred state of being that was both a result and condition of serving God. It wasn’t a lack that needed to be remedied or a punishment that needed to be endured or even a test; it was simply an outcome of serving God. But being “poor” of material wealth opened up a torrent of spiritual wealth, thanks to Jesus’ total dependence on God. This is what Jesus exemplified and invited his followers to experience for themselves. In fact, the first thing he had his disciples do when they started to follow him was unburden themselves of all their material possessions (houses, lands), quit their jobs, and leave their families behind. He didn’t direct them to go homesteading or plant a Victory Garden. He didn’t advise them to buy gold and bury it for safekeeping. He simply offered them an invitation to follow him and serve God, and the direct consequence of their decision to accept his invitation was radical poverty – that is, radical dependence on God.

It’s important to distinguish between Jesus choosing to serve God and Jesus choosing to live in poverty. He didn’t choose to live in poverty like some kind of economic martyr; he chose to serve God, which necessarily required him to stop serving mammon. If you stop serving mammon, you no longer have the rewards of mammon, which typically involve having excess, though for a price. What you get in serving God is just enough to survive, which frankly should do us born-again believers just fine until we get Home.

One of the devil’s most infamous temptations was to offer Jesus untold wealth and possessions in exchange for serving him, but Jesus bluntly turned him down. Jesus also told a rich religious leader who’d come to him for advice to sell everything he had, but this wasn’t what the religious leader had hoped to hear, and it depressed him. Many worldly Christians throughout the ages have likewise gotten depressed at the thought of having to give up their worldly possessions and walk away from their careers and families to follow Jesus. They counter their aversion by claiming that Jesus’ modeling of radical poverty was specific to the early Church, not something that applies to today’s established Church. All I can say to anyone who believes that lie is that they obviously haven’t read the Gospels and don’t know Jesus.

Why is poverty the preferred state of being for Jesus and his followers? Because serving God and being poor go hand-in-hand: You cannot serve God and mammon. You cannot claim to be serving God while at the same time be out running around chasing a buck. If you do that, you’ll be double-minded and serving two masters, which means you’ll really only be serving the devil. Serve God and God only, and you’ll be rewarded by God with whatever you need to survive: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness, and everything you need will be given to you.” Yes, you may on occasion go hungry or thirsty or end up sleeping rough, but those are not in and of themselves bad things and God will use those situations to your benefit. He will also use them to bless others by giving them the opportunity to help you. There’s no greater blessing for anyone on Earth than to help God’s children with a need, be it with a cup of cold water, or a well-timed meal, or a place for them to lay their head for the night.

Secondly, poverty ‘cleans the slate’ of mental pressures and filters associated with worldly wealth. I have never been wealthy, but I know people who are, and I see how the constant building and management of their wealth consumes them. It’s not something external to them but the core of their identity, so that if their wealth declines, they feel that they themselves have diminished. This is a sad state of affairs. Just as sad is that wealthy people tend to judge others based on their net worth, so that they look down on the poor and fawn over the wealthy. This is also a sad state of affairs.

Thirdly, serving God and choosing to live with only the blessings he provides is a form of lifelong fasting. We know that fasting extends to every aspect of our lives, not just food, and is spiritually beneficial. Making do with the bare minimum and even at times patiently accepting doing without makes us more grateful for what we do have, while also making us that much more reliant on God and therefore bringing us closer to him. God once described money to me as “spiritual cancer”, and he wasn’t wrong (he’s never wrong). The less spiritual cancer God’s children have, the better.

These considerations are just the tip of the iceberg on the benefits of what is known as being poor, as exemplified by Jesus in the Gospels. If Jesus so valued poverty that he willingly agreed to it as a condition of serving God, then why does the worldly church frame poverty as a negative state of being? Certainly, we need to distinguish between people who choose to serve God and so willingly become poor, and those who are poor for reasons not related to serving God. Yet even so, is poverty for whatever reason truly a bad thing? In other words, are people less happy poor than they are rich? I can only speak from my own experience, but by far the happiest people I know are the poorest, and the most miserable and dissatisfied are the wealthiest.

Paul describes in one of his letters how he learned to rejoice whether he’s abased or abounding. I have been both, and I know in hindsight that periods of being abased have always brought me that much closer to God, whereas periods of abounding have tended to draw my attention elsewhere.

So, when all is said and done – is poverty bad? Not according to God and Jesus. By all means, we can “help the poor” whenever we want (as Jesus said we could, to get the expected spiritual rewards), but don’t for a second think that the people receiving the help are any worse off spiritually than those giving the help. We’re no longer in Old Testament times, when material wealth was considered a sign of God’s favor. The New Testament opens up a whole new understanding not only of the value of poverty, but its role and necessity in the life of a true believer. The worldly church might consider giving it a read sometime.