Thursday, May 04, 2006

Are luxuries a sin?

I am here going to do my best to give a Biblically faithful answer to the question:
Is having luxuries in a world full of preventable suffering a sin?

Before I go any further, I would like to first define luxuries for my purposes here. I define a luxury as anything above and beyond meeting basic needs, basic levels of comfort, basic responsibility, basic ability to function well in your culture, and basic ability to do your job well. I get the impetus for this definition from Proverbs 30:8. I suppose I could go on and further define basic needs, basic responsibilities, etc., but that could get a bit tedious, so for now we will let this definition stand alone.

So now, where to begin? Let's start with Matthew 10:29-37:
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

I gather that the point of the parable is this: Your neighbor is anyone who needs your help that you have the ability to help. Furthermore, we are obligated in love to go out of our way to provide that help where we see a need. So, how do we apply this to our current situation as educated, fairly affluent, Western Christians in a world that is still repleat with enough preventable hunger, disease, and suffering to bring any thoughtful and loving Christian to tears? Here is my train of thought:
  • Is it a sin to disobey a clear teaching of Jesus? Yes
  • Is it a clear teaching of Jesus to show mercy when you are able? Yes
  • Therefore, it is a sin to not show mercy to your neighbor when you are able, and in this day and age, almost everyone is your neighbor according to Jesus' definition.

So to bring back our original question: Is having luxuries in a world full of preventable suffering sin? My answer is this: If luxuries prevent you from showing mercy and love to your neighbor, then they are a sin. If you could get by with a car that is several thousand dollars cheaper, then it seems that vanity would be the only reason to have a nicer one, especially if that money could be used to advance the Gospel or alleviate preventable suffering. The same could be said of clothing, recreation, food, Dish satelites, second homes, etc., etc. This obviously wouldn't look the same for everyone. One man was told by Jesus to sell everything he owned, another was moved to sell half and commended for it, still another sold a field, and still others in Scripture sold things "as others had need," and yet still others used their possesions themselves as a way to advance the Kingdom without actually selling them. James 2:16 is also a scripture that could be looked at here, but this is getting a bit long already.

In general, perhaps it is the "entitlement mentality" that is sinful. Just because you can afford something, doesn't mean that you are justified/entitled to have it, especially if your resources could be better used in some Kingdom capacity. I am fully aware that if I am correct, then my life is far from this ideal, and I pray that God will help me to do some pretty heavy duty repenting so that I will not be like the man "desiring to justify himself."

An immediate, and almost cliche, objection to this line of reasoning usually go like this, "David, Solomon, and Abraham were wealthy, and they were considered righteous men of God." My answer to this objection comes in several layers.

First, I am not saying that luxuries, in and of themselves, are sinful.

Second, just because an OT character portrays a certain attitude, action, or lifestyle, that doesn't necessarily mean that Christians would be justified in immitating it. Abraham, David, and Solomon were wealthy indeed, but they also did many things that it would be sinful for the Christian to do that we don't see them recognizing as sinful. Solomon's many wives pop into mind.

Thirdly, Jesus and the Apostolic witness shed new light, in many ways, on how the Children of Promise should live. Jesus himself updates (I'm not sure what the best word would be here) many practices that were seemingly endorsed by the OT. Divorce comes to mind. Moses said it was OK with a certificate, but Jesus gets straight to the meat of the matter and draws out a previously unseen way of viewing life and choices, one that is radically God centered. The New Testament, along with other things, seems to give Christians a new and higher view of possessions and money than the one given in the OT.

And the last reason that I don't think Abraham, et al. , are a good example for the Christian of how to use wealth is that their lives were foreshadowings of deeper truths. The material blessings belonging to the Old Testament heros of the faith were pointing toward the deeper, truer, more eternal spiritual blessings that we enjoy here, and will enjoy even more in Heaven. As the Biblical revelation moves from "type" to "reality" we see less and less material possesions and more and more spirtual possesions.

In conclusion, I am not saying that all rich people are necessarily any more sinful than poor people. I am saying simply this: If luxuries prevent you from showing mercy and love to your neighbor, then they are a sin. Ultimately, anything that does not spring from a love for God, His Glory, His Kingdom, and your neighbor is sin. God help us. Soli Deo Gloria!

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, I don't mind being the first to comment on this, especially after just having watched Invisible Children about an hour ago. And I will actually throw in James 2:15,16 that Jason left out for length's sake. How useless are we as vessels of the Lord to simply say "that's terrible" and "someone should do something, but not me, because I have 'no money' or power to do anything." True faith found in James doesn't say that, but instead it looks to the Lord and acts, knowing God finds great pleasure in empowering those who have little to boast in, and He enjoys the widow giving the tiniest of offerings... And when we put the blame of the needy being uncared for onto others, we're probably falling into being too prideful of our own possessions (1 John 2:17-17) - I mean, some cars just aren't that cool that might cost me less. (trust me when I say I'm pretty much writing this all to my guilty self)

But something else came to mind, too, and that is 1 Cor. 13:3 - "If I give away all that I have...but have not love, I gain nothing." Jason was so dead on with motivations in this luxuries thing, because it is the loving of others that is important, not the possessions, yet it's the giving to others (and perhaps forsaking our own desire to possess) that is the evidence of love. Good stuff, Jason - thanks for the encouragement to think rightly!

Anonymous said...

Your blog is absolutely encouraging. Thank you so much for what you are doing. BTW I have been without a TV for 2 years. It's an icebreaker I'll tell yah that... and it opens opportunities to speak of the Lord.