5 Proposals about the Church's Response to Poverty

The purpose of this blog is to help me formulate and express a personal faith that will make a positive social contribution.  As a blog of ideas, I have reviewed a few of my essays from seminary that I would like to share with readers.  These papers are shared strictly for information purposes and may not be reproduced.  This is the second of three papers I will post.

I submitted this essay in 2010 toward the completion of my comprehensive exam for Dr. Craig Gay of Regent College in Vancouver, BC.  

+

Whether by seeing a public service announcement on television, walking down a busy city street, or reading a newspaper, a person cannot help but realize that something is not right.  World Vision advertisements show images of children in absolute destitution and are aired during television programs, couched between advertisements enticing people to buy something on the promise that the purchase will make buyers more popular, better looking, or happier.  City streets are lined with people asking for change or food, while luxury store fronts light up behind them.  News stories about program cuts and poverty rates are juxtaposed with stories celebrating million-dollar athletes, advertisements for gadgets that replace last year’s gadgets, and columns delivering gossip about celebrities.  It is impossible to miss the contrast. 

The following paper seeks to explore the issue of poverty in light of the Christian faith.  In this exploration, it will make five proposals for a Christian understanding of poverty.  First, the church must respond to poverty.  Second, the church must meet immediate needs of the poor through almsgiving.  Third, the church must work with the oppressed to create transformative justice while forgoing development.  Fourth, the church’s response to poverty should be in light of worship and evangelism.  Fifth, the church’s response to poverty should involve a proper understanding of its God-ordained role in society.

Before expanding each of these proposals, it is necessary to define poverty.  Although there is a concept known as spiritual poverty or theological poverty, as described by Gustavo Gutierrez and others as a “religious attitude,” this paper does not explore this idea.[1]  Instead, this paper will focus on the types poverty that result from a lack that prevents living a full life.[2]  The first, and for this paper predominant, definition of poverty is material poverty.  Material poverty comes from not having sufficient goods like water, food, clothes, shelter, or education necessary to sustain life.  People experiencing material poverty are unable to afford to purchase such items.[3]  This type of poverty is present throughout the Old Testament and New Testament.  Several Hebrew and Greek words are translated as “poverty.”  These words are typically used to refer to a person or position that does not have sufficient monetary resources to sustain life without external assistance.  This position typically grows from oppression or a disaster.[4]  Material poverty is contrary to God’s will because it damages human dignity.[5]  Such poverty may be by choice, however.  When a person chooses material poverty to stand alongside people who experience poverty due to someone else’s choice, material poverty can be a protest against the condition of the poor.  In this case, material poverty is motivated by love and imitating Jesus.[6] 

A second type of poverty is “social poverty.”  When a person experiences social poverty, he or she cannot participate in normal life.  This means that he or she cannot find employment or other means of earning a living, develop community, or express themselves.  Because someone experiencing social poverty typically will not have a relationship with someone participating in society, there is rarely an opportunity to move out of this condition.   People experiencing this type of poverty can no longer envision themselves as part of society.[7]  This poverty is also reflected by a “hunger for love.”  It results in feelings of loneliness, being unloved, and abandonment.  Although this type of poverty is often related to material poverty, it can affect people with monetary resources as readily as the homeless.[8] 

A third type of poverty is psychological poverty.  This type affects people’s minds.  It is typically experienced by people suffering material poverty.  Psychological poverty is manifest in the stress that comes from needing to struggle to find enough resources to survive or knowing that these resources are not attainable.  People are constantly humiliated and robbed of dignity.  Such shame often leads to or further entrenches relational poverty.[9]  Material poverty also leads to psychological poverty because the mainstream of society often ignores people experiencing material poverty.  Mainstream society may approach these people to seek votes and will convince someone experiencing psychological poverty that the powerful can address their problems better than they can.[10] 

A fourth type of poverty is characterised by want.  John Chrysostom highlighted this type of poverty.  This type of poverty does not only affect people in material poverty but can also affect people who have monetary resources.  It is characterised by having a great desire to have something more than you already have.[11] 

A final type of poverty comes from a lack of beauty.  Nicholas Wolterstorff describes a situation in his hometown where the city council decided to purchase a piece of art for public display.  Despite the objections of some citizens, Wolterstorff wonders if a type of poverty would exist if the art piece was not on display:

About ten years ago in my own city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, a very large bright red sculpture designed by Alexander Calder was placed in a newly designed plaza...  When the purchase of the Calder was being discussed, there were those who suggested that the money should instead be given over to the poor.  Of course no one had proposed collecting this amount of money and giving it to the poor before the issue of the sculpture came up.[12]

With a clearer understanding of what poverty is, a proper Christian understanding also requires understanding the causes of poverty.   This paper will not provide an exhaustive list of the causes of poverty, but instead focus on two causes, both of which are external to the person experiencing poverty.

One reason for poverty is inadequate distribution.  Dewi Hughes writes that history demonstrates that poverty is “largely unnecessary.”  Hughes claims that the Earth and human efforts can typically provide for everyone.  Despite the existence of adequate resources, a constant throughout history is that people do not have enough for even basic survival.  Often, while many are starving, a few others enjoy abundance.  The church cannot understand poverty without understanding this point.[13] 

Ronald J. Sider makes a similar point when he explains famine in the 21^st Century.  People with money and power do not experience famine today.  When there is a food shortage, wealthy people are able to absorb the extra costs associated with scarcity.  While the wealthy can afford food, the poor are out of sight and starve to death.  Sider describes this as “redistributed” famine.  Because famine is redistributed, it does not necessarily require a lack of resources but only requires the wealthy to purchase a disproportionate amount of resources.  Famine related death is now possible in times of plenty.[14]

Wolterstorff believes that such inadequate distribution is a violation of rights.  While he does not argue that people can make many demands of one another, he does write that people should be able to expect other people to allow structures that ensure mutual survival during times of abundance and during moderate struggles.  Such structures should ensure adequate clothes, food, clean air, clean water, shelter, and basic health care.[15]

A second cause of poverty is the sinful use of power.  Hughes defines power as “the ability to do something.”  Humans have power because God created us as powerful beings.[16]  As a result of sin, power is unbalanced.  Now, wealth is a source of power.  Hughes’ definition makes it clear that the wealthy have the power to serve, ignore, or oppress the poor.  Chavannes Jeune writes,

Thus certain relationships in society – those to do with ownership and power, whether social, racial, economic, cultural, or political – are responsible for perpetuating poverty.  Bound up in these relationships are also social structures that foster injustice and inequality between the powerful and powerless, rich and poor, beneficiaries and victims.[17]

Such lessons are also part of church tradition.  Chrysostom taught that God did not create some people to be wealthy and some people to be poor.  Instead, wealth and poverty are caused by injustice.  It is impossible to be “honourably rich.”[18]  Chrysostom was not concerned with how much a person had, but by how the person used what he or she had.  What a person owns, a person owns for the sake of helping the poor.[19] 

Calvin taught that it is a sin for the wealthy to neglect service to the poor.[20]  Calvin saw failure to serve the poor as an attack on God because God chose the poor to be His representatives on earth.[21]  The accumulation of goods while others are in need is a perversion of economics and akin to murder.  Israelite Law provided a system that would prevent hoarding by instituting rules to distribute materials to the poor.  This teaches the church that poverty is the result of injustice.[22]  Gutierrez follows in this tradition.  He writes that injustice does not simply happen.  Rather injustice is the result of some form of sin.  This was also true in ancient Israel.  To understand poverty, the church must now revisit the prophets who spoke to Israel.[23]

+

Proposal #1: A Christian understanding to poverty acknowledges that the church must respond to poverty.

It is not enough to understand what poverty is, understand some of it causes, or feel badly for its victims.  A Christian understanding of poverty acknowledges that the church must respond to poverty.  The church has a biblical directive and a command from God to respond.  Poverty is not a good thing and many in the church have the resources to respond.   

            

The first reason the church must respond to poverty is that there is a directive to respond to poverty addressed to the people of God throughout scripture.  Scripture does not give one clear mandate regarding possessions.  The fundamental lesson, therefore, is not in reference to our precise actions regarding possessions, but is instead that our possessions can shape our relationship with God.[24]  By not providing people with a constant rule regarding use of possessions, God leads the church to a faithful, rather than ideological, use of possessions.  The Bible teaches that poverty is not simply the result of poor economic systems, but in fact the result of sin.  Our response to this fact demonstrates the veracity of our faith.[25]  Not having a single biblical approach to poverty and material goods also demonstrates the difficulty of these issues and that they require different responses in different situations.  At times, the church should act to serve people as they suffer.  At other times, the church should repent its own sin that contributed to human suffering.[26]  Calvin understood the diversity of use of possessions.  He did not have “objective standards” regarding the church’s response to poverty.  Instead, he encouraged people to look to scripture and the realities of a particular circumstance to determine the best reaction to economic issues.[27]

In the Old Testament, Israel’s role was to “enlighten the nations.”   As a light to the nations, other cultures can look to Israel’s Law for guidance.  The Law’s commands regarding economics were intended to prevent poverty.  The Law ensured that everyone would have access to land and its resources.  The Law values work and includes a provision that everyone who is physically able to work has both the right and the responsibility to do so.  The Law demonstrates that material goods are a good thing, but also commands close monitoring of their use.  The Law commands fair distribution of economic benefits and warns that God judges a society by this distribution.[28]  Oppression of the poor was a sin against neighbour and God.  The Israelite motivation for serving the poor was the covenantal relationship with God.[29]  Likewise, the prophets condemn those who have gained wealth by oppressing the poor.[30]  The writings frequently refer to people who oppress the poor as “the wicked.”[31] In the New Testament, the Gospels summarize the Law as love for God and love for neighbour.[32]  The Gospels illustrate Jesus initiating his church as a new community that He will govern.  This community is an alternative to the powerful and oppressive structures of the world that surrounds it.[33]  The new community begun in the Gospels is one of “words of truth and deeds of love.”  Such a presentation is dangerous in a world that will hate this message.  This danger, however, is tempered with the realization that the full kingdom is coming.[34]  The Epistle of James highlights a Christian community that maintains service while oppressed.  James teaches that anyone who has excess possessions must use these possessions to serve those who do not have enough.  If someone does not share in this manner, it is evidence that he or she is not a true Christian.[35]  James exhorts his readers to not favour the wealthy members of their congregation.[36]

Scripture presents a view on eschatology that presents a coming fulfilled Kingdom of God.  This eschatology is both future and present.  Such a presentation will impact the spiritual and physical realities of people now.  The Bible presents a “grace-sin conflict” as a historical reality which affects the physical and social aspects of life.  When Christians struggle for a just world, they struggle to demonstrate the Kingdom, because social injustice is “incompatible” with God’s kingdom.[37]  A Christian approach to economics is rooted in this eschatology.  Jesus is the sovereign King of all, including finances.  Jesus chose poverty despite his kingly right to assume all the wealth present in the world.[38]  Although the Kingdom is not yet here in full, Christians must live as if it is.  Christian imagination allows Christians to foresee what the Kingdom will be like. Christians have faith that God’s complete victory is coming.  This faith allows the church to reflect what this victory will look like.[39]

The second reason the church must respond to poverty is that God commands His church to do so.  Calvin taught that God will judge a person’s spiritual life by how he or she used his or her material goods.[40]  The life of Jesus demonstrates that God chooses to be on the side of the poor.  Jesus demonstrates that it is against God’s will for people to be poor, especially while others are rich.  Jesus demonstrates that, given the choice, God chooses to stand alongside the victimised poor.[41]  Christians must ask if we are also on the side of the poor.  When worshiping God, do we remember that He equates kindness to the poor with kindness to Him?[42]  Christians claim to follow Christ.  This means that Christians will follow Jesus to stand beside the poor, even if this brings ridicule from the wealthy.[43] 

The third reason the church must respond to poverty is that poverty is not good.  God created the material world and gives materials to people as a gift.  God intends that people enjoy these gifts, assuming that people do not allow these possessions to lead them away from God.  God partly gives these gifts so the receiver can share these gifts with others.  Proper stewardship of the material gifts of God is evidence of faith, because extremes of wealth and poverty are problematic.  It is impossible to separate use of material good from Christian faith.[44]  In his survey of economic issues in the early church, Justo Gonzalez notes that early theologians saw an intimate connection between financial issues and faith.  While there was a range of opinion about how to relate faith and wealth in the early church, no one taught that the issues should be kept separate.  The idea that preachers and theologians should leave financial discussions to other people is unique to the modern church.[45]

The fourth reason the church must respond to poverty is that it has the resources to do so.  Obviously, this does not apply to all members of the church as individuals.  Nonetheless, there is wealth in pockets of Christianity.  Such pockets exist while people die due to poverty related causes.  It is only possible to juxtapose wealth and death if wealthy Christians choose to ignore the biblical teaching that God evaluates people’s faith by their response to poverty.[46]  God created people to be equal.  Life is a gift from God and the lives of the poor are as valuable as the lives of the rich.[47]  Sin has destroyed this equality.  The wealthy church should not be generous.  Instead, the wealthy church has the capability to defend the rights of the oppressed.  When a wealthy person learns that another person is starving and then refuses to act, this wealthy person has infringed on his or her neighbour’s right to life.[48]  The oppression some people experience is intense enough to prevent them from escape on their own.  Helping them escape then becomes the responsibility of the free church.  Wolterstorff writes to free, wealthy Christians such as himself,

...the Word of the Lord and the cries of the people join in calling us to do more than count our blessings, more than shape our inwardness, more than reform our thoughts.  They call us to struggle for a new society in the hope and expectation that the goal of our struggle will ultimately be granted us.[49]

+

Proposal #2: Part of the church’s response to poverty must include meeting immediate needs via almsgiving.

The church’s response to poverty will be twofold.  This section of the essay will discuss the first response and proposes the Church has a responsibility to meet immediate needs via almsgiving.  When participating in almsgiving, the church should consider both how much to give and who is responsible for giving.  Before discussing these considerations, however, it is important to understand what almsgiving is and why it is important.

Johnson explains that almsgiving was the primary method in scripture of following God’s exhortation to share with those in need.  Almsgiving is self-sacrificial and a command of God.  Almsgiving is obedience to God’s command to neighbour love.[50] Almsgiving implies ownership; otherwise, the person would have no goods to share.  Almsgiving is then a perpetual way of life.  Obedience to the command to almsgiving requires only enough possessions that there is something to share.[51]  Calvin had similar teaching.  The purpose of wealth is to support life.  Sin prevents wealth from fulfilling its purpose.  When wealth properly fulfills its role, it is used to serve other people.  This means that the wealthy are required to serve the poor.  The wealthy received their wealth from God for the purpose of serving people who do not have wealth.[52]  Private property is only permissible when it serves the wider community.  Ultimately, property belongs to God and must therefore be used by His standards.  Christians have an obligation to give from their wealth when they encounter someone in need.  If a wealthy Christian refuses to give to a person in need, the refusal is akin to theft.[53]  Teresa of Calcutta saw almsgiving as a means to solve seemingly unsolvable problems.  She knew that starvation was a significant problem.  She did not try to end absolute starvation, however.  Instead, she noted the way to end starvation was to feed the person who is starving.[54]

The early church developed a “theology of philanthropy.”  The root of this theology was Christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology.  The church taught that it was the body of Christ in the world.  As Christ’s body, the church was tasked to work to reconstruct society according to His teachings.  As evidenced by early prayers and liturgies, the church saw itself as “a holy nation.”  As a holy nation, it was responsible to its citizens and developed social services.  Such services included personal almsgiving, but almsgiving was expanded to include creating service institutions.[55]

A theology of philanthropy is necessary because it will provide structure for almsgiving.  The church is able to create such a structure.  Calvin assigned deacons to the task of providing oversight for the church’s monetary ministry.  He envisioned this ministry as part of the church’s spiritual teaching, but did not intend for this role to become dominant in spiritual teaching.[56]  Almsgiving, structured or otherwise, is not proof of compassionate faith.  Its absence, however, does indicate that a person or church does not love God.  Therefore, inequality cannot exist in the church.  Equality is relative to ability.  It ensures the means of comfortable survival within the ecclesial and secular elements of a person’s life.[57]

Christian almsgiving raises two significant questions.  First, how much alms should the Christian give?  Almsgiving in the early church demonstrates that the action is more significant than giving change to someone on a street corner.  For the early church, the question about how much to give may have been better expressed by asking how much to keep.  Almsgiving allows a person to keep what is necessary for survival.  Early pastors and theologians did not develop strict rules regarding what was necessary for survival, but taught that Christians should receive advice from a trusted mentor when deciding how much to give and how much to keep.[58]

Teresa had a similar attitude as the early church toward almsgiving.  When discussing the people who donated to her organisation, she explains that she did not want a person to give only what was extra.  Instead, she wanted people to sacrifice a luxury and donate the cost of this item.  Such a sacrifice is not necessarily financial.  People could also give their time and physical efforts.[59]  Teresa gave an example of such a sacrifice.  A woman approached Teresa and said that she wanted to help, but that she enjoyed buying fine clothes.  Teresa told her to reduce her clothing budget from 800 to 700 rupees for the next month.  Then from 700 to 600 and so on until her budget was 100 rupees a month. She could then donate the left over money to Teresa’s Missionaries of Charity.[60]

The second question that the church should ask about almsgiving regards who should give.  Put simply, almsgiving is a viable means of responding to poverty for anyone who has the resources to do so.  This means that almsgiving is partly the responsibility of the wealthy.  Clement taught that Christians should not be attached to money.  Wealth was a means for doing good.  For the wealthy, sharing was both a religious and civic responsibility.  Wealthy Christians should forgo selfishness and share with the poor.[61]  Almsgiving can also be the responsibility of people ordinarily considered “poor.”  Buell discusses the idea of systematic almsgiving as a possible means for the poor to serve one another in the early church.  In the early church, most Christians lived on the edge of society and did not have many resources but almsgiving still occurred as a means of service.  It is possible that people near the subsistence level would have had periods of relative prosperity and periods of greater need.  During times of relative prosperity, the early Christian could share with someone whose need was great.  During times of greater need, the early Christian could accept help from someone else.  This means the same person could be an almsgiver during one period and a recipient at another time.[62] 

+

Proposal #3: The church must work with the oppressed to create transformative justice while forgoing development. 

Sider explains that almsgiving on its own is an insufficient response to poverty.  It is a good thing for a Christian to repent and stop spending as much money on luxury items; however, such an action will not result in less hunger.  If the same Christian uses some of this newly excess money to feed people there would be less hunger; however, structures would still exist that allow people to become hungry.  The next step is for wealthy Christians in wealthy countries to take political action.  Justice is impossible without structural change.[63]

Calvin also taught that it is not enough to meet a person’s immediate needs.  Meeting such needs should be accompanied by attempts to improve the situation that results in need.  Such attempts will be contextual and therefore address different structural flaws in different times and places.[64]  Structural problems exist because everyone who has power has the opportunity to exploit someone who does not have power.  The church has a responsibility to rebuke any wealthy person or group who exploits people in lower positions and to challenge anyone who is the beneficiary of exploitative social structures.[65]   

Structural injustice exists because social structures are fallen and operating apart from the will of God.  The purpose of these structures is to allow fulfillment for people living within them.  Instead, these fallen structures prevent people from living complete lives as God intended.  The church exists partly to reflect the will of God on Earth.  This means addressing structures that allow injustice when God intended them to create harmony.  The church should oppose both unjust structures and the worldviews that create them.  Such opposition can bring these structures in line with God’s will and alter them so that they can allow people to exist in fullness.[66]

Broadly speaking, there are two ways for the church to address structural evil: development and transformative justice.  This paper will first demonstrate why development is a problematic response and then propose that transformative justice is a better response.  The literature demonstrates three reasons why development is problematic: it has been ineffective; it does not address sin; it does not take God into account.

First, development has been ineffective.  Nicholas Wolterstorff writes that the idea of development, what he refers to as the “modernisation theory,” is “bankrupt.”  It cannot explain why poor countries have not progressed without acknowledging that rich countries have negatively influenced the conditions of these countries.  It is impossible to explain the results of oppression without acknowledging an oppressor.[67]  Gutierrez demonstrates that development is illogical.  Development does not start with an even playing field.  The countries that development would benefit try to progress while wealthy countries also progress.  This prevents these countries from moving forward.  When two countries attempt to move forward, the country that has more resources will have more opportunity to step ahead.  This creates situations where the poor country continues to stay relatively undeveloped or actually regresses.  Development inherently allows a division between people.[68]

Second, development does not acknowledge the effect of sin.  Scripture presents pre-fallen people as creative stewards.  Adam was created to be a gardener and a prince.  Adam abandoned this role in an attempt to become equal with God.  This attempt inaugurated sin in creation and sin prevents people from being the caretakers that God intended.  Development theories do not acknowledge that this sin will prevent development from progressing as planned.[69]  Development theories do not acknowledge that repairing social structures must involve repairing the personal state of sin.  Without addressing sin, progress is impossible.[70]

Third, development does not provide a role for God in reforming oppressive structures.  Develop does not acknowledge God’s role in history.  Instead, the possibility of future progress is entirely the responsibility of people.  This focus reduces human activity to physicality and ignores the spiritual, creative, and communal aspects of humanity.  This worldview will therefore make the goal of development continued growth.  At its best, development initiates new members in the social elite.  This does not address the larger issues that cause injustice.[71] 

Transformative justice is preferable to development because it involves both God and people.  Transformative justice acknowledges and addresses the role of sin in structural oppression and addresses sins in personal, relational, and societal spheres.  Transformative justice is not a process, but instead the action of a God-human partnership in history.[72]  Transformative justice does not simply switch structures, but instead changes the character of structures.  Transformative justice is then closely connected to evangelism and cannot exist without it.[73]       

Transformative justice allows people to escape from oppression.  Walter Wink calls the conditions that allow for injustice “irrational.”  Whereas development is an entirely rational response to injustice, it is impossible to combat irrationality with only rationality.  Such combat requires something greater.  Structural oppression needs to be revealed as sin and then transformed – even healed – so the structure itself is no longer sinful.  Transformative justice allows God to redeem the broken structure.[74]

It is tempting to use “God” as justification for any social action.  What standard does the church use to evaluate whether God was actually involved in a situation or if people are attempting to justify their own actions?  Samuel and Sugden suggest several indicators that of God’s involvement in history.  Each indicator reflects a characteristic of the fulfilled Kingdom of God.  They write, 

God is thus at work in every corner of the world and history.  When we see human dignity... freedom... participation in decisions... hope... sharing... struggle against evil and injustice... sense of God’s presence, a recognition of the power of evil, without and within, and true humility about the limitations of our knowledge....[75]  

Robert Moffitt redefines “development” (while maintaining use of the word) to reflect the need for transformative justice when he writes that this idea is found in “every biblically based activity of the body of Christ, his church, that assists in bringing human beings toward the place of complete reconciliation with God and complete reconciliation with their fellows and their environment.”[76]

Transformative justice involves the voices and efforts of the oppressed.  The wealthy pockets of the church should be in solidarity with the poor.  It is undeniable that some people victimise others.  Such victimisation is sin.  Acknowledging this fact is to stand with the oppressed in confrontation against the oppressor.  If the wealthy church legitimately stands with the poor against oppression, justice will come.[77]  For the wealthy church to stand with the poor, it will have to acknowledge that some of its own spending habits have led to oppression while also using much of its money to support justice.  This may result in wealthy Christians themselves becoming poor.  In such instances, poverty is an element of protest.  A protesting solidarity alongside the poor is an imitation of Christ and demonstrates the role of God and the need for repentance in transformation.  Such solidarity also gives the poor their own voice against their oppressors; the church stands in a supportive role rather than a speaking role.[78]

Why is structural injustice problematic?  God created people to be in His image.  People reflect God in the world.  This reflection should be one of stewardship rather than one of looter.  If social injustice exists, neither the oppressed nor the oppressor can reflect the image of God.  Transformative justice changes these structures so that justice, peace, and community are possible for everybody.  Transformative justice provides the opportunity for God’s purpose – the Kingdom of God and shalom – to be met.  When this occurs, social structures will replace oppression with peace, health, and prosperity.[79]

It is not enough to understand only why transformative justice is preferable to development without understanding what a biblical definition of justice is.[80]    Biblical justice has four elements, including the proper use of power, rootedness in Christ, being outwardly focused, and opposition to injustice.  

First, justice is about power.  Gary Haugen calls justice the “right exercise of power or authority.”  God distributes power so power must be used according to His standards.[81]  To use power within God’s standards, there must be the proper “equilibrium of power.”  This means that justice requires a powerful person to acknowledge personal faults when engaging a weaker person.[82]  Right use of power includes action.  William Wilberforce explains that it is the responsibility of every Christian in a position of power to “discharge with the duties of his particular station, and to conduct himself according to his measure, after the example of the blessed master…”[83]

Second, justice is rooted in Christ.  Justice is only possible if it is solidified in Christ; otherwise, justice will be incomplete and will become corrupted.[84]  Justice a mark of discipleship.  Those who are truly just belong to Christ.[85]  Justice therefore marks true humanity, restoring the human dignity that God gave people in creation.[86]  God uses His people to administer His justice to restore humanity to His image.[87]  Restoring humanity to God’s image means that justice has a communal aspect.  This is important because the Bible tells the story of God creating people to live in relation with Him.  While we have the right to refuse this relationship, we do not have the right to impede anyone else from accepting it.  God created people to be stewards of the Earth and justice ensures that one person or group cannot prevent another person or group from fulfilling this mandate.  Justice balances the rights of the individual with the rights of society.[88]

Third, justice must be outwardly focused.  A just person is responsible for other people and their well-being.[89]  John Wesley argues that concern for the welfare of others is a characteristic of Christianity and that Christianity will be ineffective if Christians do not follow Jesus’ command of self-denial.[90]  Biblical justice requires Christians to relinquish personal rights willingly.  The Bible talks about the rights of the other and the responsibilities of the reader.  It is the duty of the Christian to love God and neighbour.  This does not mean that the Christian must allow him- or herself to be bullied.  It does mean that the Christian will not take an action that will harm another person simply because there is the legal right for the Christian to do so.[91] 

Fourth, justice is the opposite of injustice.[92]  For real justice to occur, a just person must confront injustice.  Justice does not seek to preserve a long-lasting society.  It seeks to improve the lives of the disadvantaged.[93]  Injustice always violates the rights of others.  Gary Haugen explains that “injustice occurs when power is misused to take from others what God has given them.  Namely, their life, dignity, liberty or the fruits of their love and labor.”[94]  Injustice destroys justice because it attacks the other three elements of what justice is.  Infringement on the rights of others means there is an abuse of power.  When such injustice exists, a society cannot function properly.[95]  Injustice happens when stewardship is neglected.  Stewardship is intimately linked to justice because the very reason God gives the “world’s goods” to the rich is so the rich can then distribute the goods freely to those in need.[96]  

+

Proposal #4:  The church’s response to poverty is in the context of worship and evangelism.  This response is the whole of neither, however.

Transformative justice is a part of how the church worships and how the church evangelises.  While the church expresses worship and evangelism in additional methods, transformative justice is impossible apart from either.  Further, if worship and evangelism do not include aspects of transformative justice, they are incomplete. 

This proposition begins with a consideration of worship.  Transformative justice is an aspect of worship in four ways.  First, it acknowledges that part of Israelite Law engages with economic and justice issues.  Replacing scriptural teaching with an alternative is idolatry.  Second, transformative justice allows for Sabbath.  Third, transformative justice is direct service to Jesus.  Fourth, transformative justice allows for church splendour.

Transformative justice is an aspect of worship firstly because it acknowledges that God takes economic matters seriously.  Neglecting God’s economic teaching in favour of something else is therefore idolatrous.  Hughes explains that the central theme of Israelite Law is worship through sacrificial confession and the rejection of idolatry.  The purpose of the Law was to make Israel “a holy nation,” which characteristically will not allow poverty.  Within this context, the Law includes provisions that allow people to earn a living, condemns economic inequality, and provides all Israelites both with ownership of land and with security against permanent loss of ownership.  The Law protects people from exploitation.  The protection of widows and orphans is connected specifically to land security because land inheritance was paternal, making widows and orphans vulnerable if the father died.  Similarly, the Law protected foreigners living within Israel.  By entering Israel, the foreigner acknowledged YHWH.  The Law’s protection was to bring the foreigner closer to God.[97] 

Failure to acknowledge the Law’s economic and justice aspects puts other priorities in the place of God.  This is idolatry.  Johnson explains that the Old Testament prophets rebuked oppression within Israel.  Often times, oppression was the direct result of idolatry.[98]  One idol that Christians need to protect against is materialism.  Escaping the worship of materialism requires intentional actions, such as rejecting advertising and the idea that bigger is better.  Materialism is especially tempting for high-earning Christians, who exist in a context that teaches that possessions equal respectability.  Following the idol of materialism will result in the victimisation of our neighbours and Christian family.[99]  Sider refers to following materialistic ideals as “heresy.”  This heresy rejects the biblical ideal of fulfillment in favour of affluence.[100] Another idol that Christians must guard against is money.  While money is a good thing that can be of great use, it can easily become an idol when people begin to love it.  The love of money motivates most of the actions in the Western world.  Craig Gay speculates that the love of money may not be the result of greed.  Instead, the ability of money to objectify nearly all elements of life may have resulted in a world empty of meaning.  The idol of the love of money created a worldview contrary to that of God.[101]  This new worldview shapes identity.  Jesus provides Christians with an example.  Jesus seemingly had enough money to survive.  Despite this, he did not identify Himself by His possessions.  Instead, he identified Himself by His relationship to the Father.[102]  Love of money has a spiritual power and can separate people from God.  Separation from God leads to vanity.  Both the rich and poor can be guilty of the idolatry of love of money.[103] 

Transformative justice is an aspect of worship secondly because it acknowledges the role of Sabbath.  An aspect of justice includes providing people with the opportunity to use their vocational gifts through paid work.[104]  John Calvin taught that it is impossible to understand biblical work apart from understanding the Sabbath.  The Sabbath allows people to pause and acknowledge God’s role in our work.  In the context of transformative justice, the Sabbath prevents employers from oppressing their employees because rest is a spiritually mandated ordinance.  Rest also prevents the worker from claiming absolute credit in work because it provides an intentional time of reflection.  Such rest is impossible apart from God.[105]

Sabbath acknowledges that life includes more than work, even work involving the human aspects of transformative justice.  Sabbath allows people to “delight in the works of God and man.”  The rest that comes with Sabbath is not simply to provide refreshment in preparation for a return to work.  Instead, it allows people to fulfill their roles as stewards of the world while also enjoying the world.[106]  Rest allows people to focus on internal matters such as being contemplative, pious, and spiritual.  When these are absent, a person lacks wholeness.[107]

Transformative justice is an aspect of worship thirdly because it is in obedience to the command of Christ to serve Him by serving the lowest people in a society.  Teresa of Calcutta was keenly aware that her service for the poor was a service for Christ.  She says, “We nurse him, feed him, clothe him, visit him, comfort him in the poor, the abandonment, the sick, the orphans, the dying.”[108]  How people use and attain possessions indicates the attitude that they have toward other people.  Attitude toward other people indicates an attitude toward God.  Possessions can also reflect an attitude toward ourselves when they take God’s place as the means of self-definition.[109]

Transformative justice is an aspect of worship fourthly because it allows for elements of worship outside of transformative justice.  A. Edward Siecienski discusses the role of “liturgical splendour” in the early church.  While the church was surrounded by poverty, it still used gold, silver, marble, and jewels in worship.  Such elements allowed people to appreciate the spiritual meanings behind the teachings and artwork associated with Christianity.  Siecienski argues that such use of resources is a valid means of worship because fine metals and stone were secondary to service to the poor.  These metals and stones reflected the ideal spiritual purity of the church that came through service to the poor.  Although gold was symbolically powerful in worship, it was more powerful in service.[110]

This study will now consider how transformative justice is an aspect of evangelism.  Transformative justice is a part of evangelism is three ways: it replaces the god of love of money with YHWH; it places Jesus as lord, which will lead to repentance; and, it demonstrations the fulfilled Kingdom.

The first way that transformative justice is an aspect of evangelism is that it replaces the god of the love of money with YHWH.  As seen above, idolatry leads to oppression.  Serving the love of money means that people will look to money for salvation, essentially believing that enough money will counter any possible disaster.  Looking to money for salvation can lead to oppression as a means to accumulate salvation.  Evangelism will introduce people to a new source of salvation.  YHWH takes the place of money.[111]

The second way that transformative justice is an aspect of evangelism is that it presents Jesus as Lord.  Having Jesus as Lord results in repentance.  Tienou explains that evangelism usually leads to some form of social transformation.  Evangelism presents Jesus as Lord.  Such a presentation leads to repentance.  As people repent, social structures begin to change.  The church is only able to have this effective evangelism when it demonstrates that its members are living the transformed, repentant lives that it presents.[112]  When the church evangelises, it must present salvation as both personally spiritual and socially tangible.  It must balance both aspects.  If the church presents the gospel as so spiritual that it does not address real-life circumstances, it cannot meet people.  If the church presents the gospel as so worldly that there is no need for a relationship with God, it cannot lead to repentance.[113]  The personal development integral to repentance is impossible if the spiritual and physical aspects of a person’s life are separated.  This person will reject an element of God’s character and will therefore misrepresent God’s Kingdom.[114]

The third way that transformative justice is an aspect of evangelism is that it demonstrates the fulfillment of the Kingdom of God.  Calvin taught that God gives the church the responsibility to show people what the fulfilled kingdom will look like.  In the Kingdom of God, everything – including wealth – must glorify God.  As the church demonstrates the full kingdom of God, it will thereby use its wealth to serve others.[115]  Foreshadowing the Kingdom of God demonstrates the truth of Jesus.  Teresa of Calcutta provides an account where a man came to her to tell her that he believes that Jesus is true.  His conversion to Christianity was sparked by the belief that the accounts of Jesus had to be true because Jesus helped Teresa to serve in the Home for the Dying.  She says, “...we preach Christ without preaching.  Not by words, but by putting his love and our love into a living action of serving the dying, the homeless, the abandoned destitute, the lepers.”[116]

+

Proposal #5: When the church takes action to address poverty, it must act within its God-ordained role in society.

It would appear that the church has a diminished role in helping the oppressed.  Other groups – whether international governments or assorted NGO’s – certainly address poverty.  There is no doubt that some are affective.  Is there a role for the church in this context?  John Chrysostom notes that all people, not simply Christians, have the responsibility to be merciful because mercy is a defining aspect of humanity.  Christians, however, have a further responsibility because the essence of Christianity involves caring.  If a Christian is not merciful, he or she is rejecting his or her faith.[117] 

Chrysostom’s teaching indicates that the church has a constant role in addressing the issue of poverty.  The context of being one of many groups addressing poverty does affect the Christian response, however.  I propose that this context makes the Christian role predominantly that of prophet.  This role is a crucial aspect of the Christian response of transformative justice in favour of development because transformative justice is a unique response of the church.  Walter Wink explains the church’s role in addressing the powers that allow structural injustice when he writes, “(I)ts task, as we have seen, is to unmask their idolatrous pretensions, to identify their dehumanizing values, to strip from them the mantle of respectability, and to disenthrall their victims.”[118]

The prophetic role involves several aspects.  The church must critically evaluate the ideals of the surrounding culture.  It will act as a prophet to capitalism, to the culture, and to the government.

When the church acts as a prophet to capitalism it needs to avoid two mistakes.  It must first avoid claiming that capitalism has no problems.  It must second avoid saying that it does no good.  Acting as a prophet within capitalism means that the church will “act redemptively within it.”  The church must realise that capitalism is so deeply engrained in our culture that it is impossible to just overturn, regardless of how stirring the church’s critique may be.  While understanding that capitalism will remain for the foreseeable future, the church must critique it when necessary.  If the church does not critique capitalism, the capitalist worldview will replace the presentation of the Kingdom of God.[119]  An example for critique is unjust labour practices.  While not all capitalists endorse poor labour standards, it is undeniable that such standards have led many companies to become very lucrative.  Calvin exhorted the church to condemn such practices.[120]

The church also acts as a prophet to the culture in general, not only regarding capitalism.  To be a prophet to culture means that the church will reject the sinful values presented by culture.  This is difficult.  The church has to make an effort to avoid becoming a product of the surrounding culture (as opposed to for the surrounding culture), while still being linked to that culture so it can present the gospel in such a way as to be relevant to the addressees.  The church must show how the gospel judges the cultural norms, without judging the culture.  At the same time, it must not distort the message of the gospel.[121]

A third way that the church can act as a prophet is by being a prophet to government.  This prophetic role is different from the previously mentioned prophetic roles because, like the church, the government has a God-ordained role.  This role is partly to protect people from injustices like poverty.  Walter Wink describes the ideal role of the “Powers,” a group which consists partly of governments.  It is a mistake to consider government inherently evil.  They serve a protective role, while also inspiring community and societal relations.  The Powers encourage communal good.  The Powers’ sin is that they have allowed themselves to idolise their various functions and to become idols themselves.  This sin, however, is a distortion of what the government should be rather than reason to reject the idea of government.[122]  John Calvin taught that the government exists to serve God.  God sets government aside both to contain evil and to initiate good.[123]  This dual role is manifest in Calvin’s teaching that a government is evaluated partly by the quality of its service to the poor.[124] 

When the church prophesises to the government it prophesises to an institution that is not meeting its God-ordained mandate; therefore, the church must be politically aware.  Gutierrez proposes the development of a political theology that speaks to the political struggles that people have.  In such a theology, the church must evaluate what role it has in alleviating these struggles, both at home and abroad.[125]  When the church acts as a prophet to government, the prophecy will be inherently political.  This means that the church’s political theology must present faith in a way that can speak into the actual political reality.  Here the church must show consideration for its own role and the role of government to avoid confusing the respective role of each.[126]

John Calvin taught that the church has a responsibility to use legal means to end the rule of an unjust government.[127]  What does that mean within a democracy?  Wink notes that such legal means are different in democracies.  These means include dissent through such operations as voting, legislative debate, and a free press.[128]  Are there intermediate steps between absolute acceptance and absolute rejection of a government?  Can the church try to redeem a government before trying to engineer its downfall? [129]  In a democracy, the Church can challenge the state for the same reason anyone else can – there is a freedom of expression.  When the Church exercises its right to speak, it also must defend the God-given right of anyone else to speak, whether it agrees with the speaker or not.  The Church also must recognize that when it speaks, the state will not necessarily act.[130] 

When the church speaks against an unjust government, it must recall that both the church and the government have God-ordained rolls.  Stassen and Gushee write, “(T)he challenge for Christians is to ground political efforts in a healthy understanding of church, state, society and the reign of God."[131]  A healthy understanding of the Church and of the state means that both are under God and that He gives roles to both.  If the church is going to confront the state, it must be certain that the state is being unjust.  It is possible that the problems a society faces are the result of other issues.  Mark Hill reminds the Church that the government cannot do everything.  The Church cannot expect the government to take care of the body while it only worries about the soul.  The government will inevitably leave holes that the Church should strive to fill.[132]    Such holes are not necessarily the result of an unjust government.  In reference to the relationship that the prophet Jeremiah had with his rulers, Larry Jones points out that the government often finds itself in a position where it cannot make a wholly good choice.  Prophesying against the government, therefore, may not be the church’s best response.  The government may be better served, and justice may be better achieved, if the church instead encourages the government by helping to meet needs that the government cannot.[133] 

Encouraging the state in this way may involve serving it.  Such service will not be blind or uncritical.  Jones points the Church, particularly Christian NGOs, to the example of Daniel.  Daniel acted as a servant to the state while standing firmly committed to God if the state contradicting Him.[134]  The Church will illustrate humility by acting as a servant to the state.  Christians must be open to the fact that people who are not Christians may have better ideas.[135]  When Christians are serving the state, it is important to realize that the state is responsible to all of its citizens.  This means serving all people, regardless of religious belief.[136]

The church also needs to understand that it is able to assist the government in meeting the government’s role, but it cannot use the government to help the church fulfill the entirety of its own role.  The Church must intentionally limit its exhortations of the government to justice related issues and acknowledge that its entire morality cannot and should not be instituted as law.  Not all elements of the church’s moral law are applicable to judicial law.  In actuality, creating judicial laws to enforce the entirety of the church’s morality may hurt efforts to install justice.[137] 

When the state does not fulfill its role of creating justice and serving the poor, the church’s prophecy now becomes confrontational.  The most direct way that Christians can confront the state is by speaking.  Like all citizens in a democracy, Christians have a right to speak and a responsibility to speak when people are treated unjustly.  Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for the victims of our nation, and for those it calls enemy, for no document from human hands can make these humans any less our brothers."[138]  The weak undoubtedly exist.  Ideally, the weak will be able to speak for themselves.  This is not always the case, however.  As long as the Church has a voice, it must use it to speak for people who cannot speak for themselves and to encourage the people who can speak for themselves.  God is the God of both the weak and the powerful.[139]

Conclusion

This paper explored the church’s response to poverty and sought to uncover some of the information necessary when deciding what a proper response should be.  It demonstrated that poverty is a complex issue and it involves more that dollar figures.  Such complexity means that a Christian response to poverty must involve more than throwing money at the problem.  The church must consider all aspects of poverty and the affect it has.  At the same time, the church must realize that all aspects of poverty point to the fact that the improper use of wealth is problematic.  Confronting the materially wealthy may not be the best way to respond to such problems.  The idea of relational poverty presented by Teresa of Calcutta demonstrates that hoarding wealth may be symptomatic of a larger problem.  It may be more productive to minister to the wealthy, which includes teaching about proper uses of wealth, rather than condemning them.

Ministry to the poor is also complex.  It is not as simple as telling people to “get a job.”  Psychological poverty demonstrates that mental health issues may be present as a person becomes increasingly marginalised.  Social poverty notes that the connections necessary to find productive employment may be unavailable.  Inadequate distribution of materials means that employment might not be available at all, or, when it is, may not be fairly remunerated.

The church’s response to poverty should be open to having an evolving ethic regarding response because situations change.  Scripture indicates that God does not provide His church with a single means of responding to poverty.  This does not mean that scripture does not have valuable lessons about this issue, however.  Scripture teaches that possessions have the potential of shaping how we relate with God.  It also teaches that poverty is often the result of someone sinning against a neighbour or God.  Therefore, a response to poverty is evidence of a person’s faith.  Responding to poverty is imitation of Jesus.  Scripture shows that Jesus stood along with the poor.  Despite not providing a specific method about how to share with people in need, scripture does tell people to do so.  Scripture shows that poverty is bad without demonstrating that affluence is good.  In light of this, the church must respond.  This is particularly urgent in areas of the church with the most wealth.

The church’s response to poverty should take sin seriously.  This paper demonstrates that wealth is not necessarily evil, but that sin does prevent wealth from being good.  Taking sin seriously allows the church to see that ownership is not sinful when the possessions are shared to help others live.  In this sense, wealth is a servant.  The church must realise that all property ultimately belongs to God.  Therefore, anyone who has excess property is responsible to God for sharing it.  Almsgiving is a method of sharing.

The church’s response to poverty should not stop with giving alms, however.  Almsgiving is effective at meeting immediate needs, but does not prevent these needs from forming.    When deciding on a response beyond almsgiving, the church must be wise in its action.  This paper presented a series of ideas to consider when deciding how to respond to poverty.  These considerations can include asking such questions as:

• Which response is best for a particular context?
• What is our end goal?
• Does our response encapsulate both the physical and spiritual needs of the person or group?
• Does our response acknowledge that sin is part of the cause of the poverty we are responding to?
• Does our response include an understanding of what the biblical command of justice is? 

This paper demonstrated that the church’s response to poverty should be in the context of worship.  It is impossible to worship YHWH without responding to poverty.  Such a response shows God that we obey His rule and believe it worthy of respect, demonstrates that we do not want money as an idol, allows the Sabbath to fulfill its role of reminding people of God’s role in our earning of the resources we have, and demonstrates direct service to Christ by serving those He identifies with.  The church’s response to poverty is also going to be in the context of evangelism.  Responding to poverty will replace the god of money with YHWH.  Evangelism presents Jesus as Lord.  When people accept Jesus as Lord, repentance will follow and will result in transforming unjust personal practices and structural systems.  Evangelism will also demonstrate what the fulfilled Kingdom will be like.  One of its characteristics is an absence of poverty.

Finally, this paper suggested that a Christian response to poverty is better reflected through transformative justice than through development because transformative justice better reflects the church’s acknowledgment of the harmfulness of sin and the power of God.  A significant element of the church’s response to poverty within the context of transformative justice will be serving in the role of prophet.  The church’s response to poverty, then, must include wisdom.  A prophet must avoid becoming deeply engrained in a cultural system, while also being closely connected with the culture so that her or she can deliver a relevant message.  As a prophet, the church should also consider what is the most effective means of interacting with the government.  The church should understand the government as a God-ordained agent.  This means that the church’s response to poverty may include helping the government to fulfill its role rather than always condemning it.

---

[1] Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology for Liberation (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), 169.

[2] Michael Taylor, Christianity, Poverty and Wealth (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2003), 5.

[3] Taylor, Christianity, 2-3.

[4] Ronald J. Sider, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005), 41.

[5] Gutierrez, Liberation, 165.

[6] Gutierrez, Liberation, 172.

[7] Taylor, Christianity, 4.

[8] Mother Teresa of Calcutta, My Life for the Poor (New York: Ballantine Books, 1985), 54.

[9] Taylor, Christianity,  4-5.

[10] Walter Wink, Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 101.

[11] Francine Cardman, "Poverty and Wealth as Theater: John Chrysostom's Homilies on Lazarus and the Rich Man," in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academinc, 2008), 168. 

[12] Nicholas Wolterstorff, Until Justice and Peace Embrace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 140.

[13] Dewi Hughes, Power and Poverty: Divine and Human Rule in a World of Need (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 11.

[14] Sider, Rich, 10.

[15] Wolterstorff, Embrace, 85.

[16] Hughes, Power, 12.

[17] Chavannes Jeune, “Justice, Freedom, and Social Transformation,” in The Church in Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1987), 219.

[18] Rudolf Brändle, “This Sweetest Passage: Matthew 25:31-46 and Assistance to the Poor in the Homilies of John Chrysostom,” in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academinc, 2008), 129.

[19] Wendy Mayer, “Poverty and Generosity Toward the Poor in the time of john Chrysostom,” in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academinc, 2008), 146-147.

[20] André Biéler, Calvin’s Economic and Social Thought (Geneva: World Alliance of Reformed Churches, 2005), 287.

[21] Ibid., 292-293.

[22] Ibid., 299-301.

[23] Gutierrez, Liberation, 102.

[24] Luke T. Johnson, Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 9.

[25] Ibid., 115-116.

[26] Steven J. Friesen, “Injustice or God’s Will?  Early Christian Explanations of Poverty,” in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academinc, 2008), 36.

[27] Biéler, Calvin,  456.

[28] Craig Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Possessions (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1999), 49-50.

[29] Johnson, Sharing, 93-94.

[30] Ibid., 95.

[31] Ibid., 98.

[32] Ibid., 103.

[33] Hughes, Power, 238.

[34] Ibid., 243.

[35] Blomberg, Neither, 160.

[36] Görge K. Hasselhoff, “James 2:2-7 in Early Christian Thought,” in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academinc, 2008), 48.

[37] Gutierrez, Liberation, 97.

[38] Biéler, Calvin, 304.

[39] Wink, Engaging, 323-324.

[40] Biéler, Calvin,  278.

[41] Wolterstorff, Embrace, 76.

[42] Proverbs 19:17.

[43] Sider, Rich,  21.

[44] Blomberg, Neither, 242-246.

[45] Justo L. Gonzalez, Faith and Wealth: A History of Early Christian Ideas of the Origin, Significance , and Use of Money (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1990), 225.

[46] Sider, Rich, xvi-xvii.

[47] Johnson, Sharing, 59.

[48] Wolterstorff, Embrace, 82.

[49] Ibid., 22.

[50] Johnson, Sharing, 138.

[51] Ibid., 18-20.

[52] Biéler, Calvin,  282-285.

[53] Ibid., 312-315.

[54] Teresa, Life, 60.

[55] Demetrios J. Constantelos, “The Hellenic Background and Nature of Patristic Philanthropy in the Early Byzantine Era,” in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academinc, 2008), 203.

[56] Biéler, Calvin,  322-327.

[57] Ibid., 305-308.

[58] Gonzalez, Faith, 227.

[59] Teresa, Life, 35.

[60] Teresa, Life, 81-82.

[61] Annewies van den Hoek, “Widening the Eye of the Need: Wealth and Poverty in the Works of Clement of Alexandria,” in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academinc, 2008), 75.

[62] Denise Kimber Buell, “‘Be not one who stretches our hands to receive but shuts them when it comes to giving’: Envisioning Christian Charity When Both Donors and Recipients Are Poor,” in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academinc, 2008), 47.

[63] Sider, Rich, 220.

[64] Biéler, Calvin, 137.

[65] Ibid., 263.

[66] Wolterstorff, Embrace, 23.

[67] Ibid., 25-26.

[68] Gutierrez, Liberation, 53.

[69] Maurice Sinclair, “Development and Eschatology,” in The Church in Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1987), 163.

[70] Wayne G. Bragg, “From Development to Transformation,” in The Church in Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1987), 47.

[71] Tom Sine, “Development: Its Secular Past and Its Uncertain Future” in The Church in Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1987),  5-7.

[72] Bragg, Transformation, 39-40.

[73] David J. Bosch, “Toward Evangelism in Context,” in The Church in Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1987), 180.

[74] Wink, Engaging,  63.

[75] Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden, “God’s Intention for the World,” in The Church in Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1987),  149.

[76] Robert Moffitt, “The Local Church and Development,” in The Church in Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1987), 236.

[77] Wolterstorff, Embrace, 67.

[78] Gutierrez, Liberation, 174.

[79] Bragg, Transformation, 39.

[80] The remainder of Proposition #3 is adapted from a paper submitted to Dr. Ross Hastings for INDS 502, Winter 2010.

[81] Gary A. Haugen.  Good News About Injustice. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 71 – 72.

[82] Reinhold Niebuhr, "Christian Faith and Natural Law,"  In Love and Justice, ed. D. B. Robertson (Cleveland: Meridian Books, 1958), 53 – 54.

[83] William Wilberforce.  Christianity and the Good Society, ed. Kevin Belmonte (Boston: River Oak Press, 1999), 29.

[84] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, trans. Neville Horton Smith. (New York: Touchstone, 1955), 58.

[85] Ibid., 62.

[86] John Stott, Roy McCloughry and John Wyatt.  Issues Facing Christians Today.  (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 199.

[87] N. T. Wright.  Evil and the Justice of God.  (Downers Grover: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 64.

[88] Ronald J. Sider.  The Scandal of Evangelical Politics.  (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2008), 105 – 106.

[89] Stott, McCloughry, and Wyatt, Issues, 205.

[90] John Wesley, "Causes of the Inefficacy of Christianity," in The Works of John Wesley: Sermons, Volume 2, ed. John Emory (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1904), 439 – 440.

[91] Stott, McCloughry, and Wyatt, Issues, 204.

[92] Glen H. Stassen and David P. Gushee.  Kingdom Ethics.  (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 357.

[93] Sider, Scandal, 109.

[94] Haugen, News, 72.

[95] Wilberforce, Christianity, 41.

[96] John Wesley, Causes, 438.

[97] Hughes, Power, 57-75.

[98] Johnson, Sharing, 44-45.

[99] Sider, Rich, 186.

[100] Ibid., 22.

[101] Craig M. Gay, Cash Values: Money and the Erosion of Meaning in Today’s Society (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 45.

[102] Johnson, Sharing, 77.

[103] Biéler, Calvin,  280-281.

[104] Ibid., 359-361.

[105] Ibid., 345-350.

[106] Wolterstorff, Embrace, 153.

[107] Wolterstorff, Embrace, 146.

[108] Teresa, Life, 27.

[109] Johnson, Sharing, 40.

[110] A. Edward Siecienski, “Gilding the Lily: A Patristic Defense of Liturgical Splendor,” in Wealth and Poverty in the Early Church and Society, ed. Susan R. Holman, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academinc, 2008),  220.

[111] Gay, Cash, 87.

[112] Tite Tienou, “Evangelism and Social Transformation,” in The Church in Response to Human Need, ed.Vinay Samuel and Christopher Sugden (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1987), 179.

[113] Bosch, Context, 184.

[114] Moffitt, Local, 236.

[115] Biéler, Calvin,  269-277.

[116] Teresa, Life, 92.

[117] Gonzalez, Faith,  202.

[118] Wink, Engaging, 164.

[119] Gay, Cash, 19.

[120] Bieler, Calvin,  363.

[121] Bosch, Context, 186.

[122] Wink, Engaging, 65.

[123] Biéler, Calvin,  249.

[124] Ibid., 263.

[125] Gutierrez, Liberation, 130.

[126] Gutierrez, Liberation, 138.

[127] Biéler, Calvin,  255-256.

[128] Wink, Engaging, 171.

[129] The remainder of Proposition #5 is adapted from a paper submitted to Dr. Ross Hasting for APPL 610, Fall 2009.

[130] Dennis P. Hollinger.  Choosing the Good.  (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002),253.

[131] Stassen and Gushee, Ethics, 479

[132] Mark Hill.  "Church-State Relations and Social Welfare in Europe,"  The Review of Faith & International Affairs 7:3 (2009): 27 – 31.

[133] Larry B. Jones. "Church-State Relations and Social Welfare in Europe,"  The Review of Faith & International Affairs 3:2 (2005), 32.

[134] Jones. Europe, 34.

[135] John G. Stackhouse Jr.  Making the Best of It.  (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 167.

[136] Marguerite Van Die.  "Introduction."  In Religion and Public Life in Canada, ed. Marguerite Van Die

(Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2001), 13.

[137] Hollinger, Choosing, 253 – 254.

[138] Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.  "Conscience and the Vietnam War."  In The Lost Massey Lectures, ed. CBC Massey Lecture Series (Scarborough: House of Anansi Press, 2007), 180.

[139] Stassen and Gushee, Ethics, 478.