Currently, there are two broadly accepted and yet entirely contradictory fables, which the clergy in the US seem entirely willing to, not only, accept, but to use in their preaching and teaching – which, invariably links it to personal formation.
These two fables are these. First, that Poverty is causally, not merely corollarily, related to all the social evils experienced by those in Poverty. In other words, any and all problems experienced by the poor are caused by Poverty. Thus, criminality, incarceration, violence, drug abuse, educational dropout and underperformance, un- and under-employment, misogyny, illegitimacy, fatherlessness, and generally antisocial behavior can all be stated to be CAUSED by poverty. Granted, many fabulists present this fable differently. But, the long and short of it is that the our Latter-Day Aesops are offering us little by means of “moral” and much in the way of dehumanizing arguments which propose that the poor have no agency, but are simply stimulus-response mechanisms which cannot be held accountable for their behavior – they had no choice, you see! Why you ask?! Because: Poverty.
On the other hand, there is another fable. And this is the undated version of Le Bon Sauvage. It’s the fable about the Virtue of Poverty. You see, according to the fabulous fabulists, Poverty is not, merely, not having a lot of money relative to the cost of living, or the wealth of others – that’s such an old fashioned notion! Scoff (Insert condescending laughter)! No, poverty isn’t just being poor. It’s more than that; and it isn’t simply a constellation of certain sociological phenomena. No, Poverty is more than that. It’s a state which imbues the participant with the status of “Virtuous”. Anyone who is poor, is therefore entitled to being considered virtuous. They have experienced poverty and therefore cannot be greedy, or exploitative, or destructive to the planet – or whatever else.
While it is worth noting that the Church has been involved in promulgating both of these fables, it’s important to make some base-line clarifications. First, it is important to recognize that there IS a strong correlation between Poverty and certain patterns of behavior. It is reasonable to conclude that the enculturation that the poor experience has a link to choices they make. I’ve written before that our enculturation channels the sin nature, but it does not create it, nor does it remove moral agency.
For example. A man for whom the only male figures in his life are drug dealers and violent criminals is highly likely to become a drug dealer or a violent criminal. Why? Because this is what he’s been taught. The Bible never shies away from the reality of enculturation and how character formation – particularly the character formation of children – creates habits and patterns which can be difficult (without God, perhaps impossible) to break. Does this mean that Poverty is causally related to antisocial behavior? Yes and No. Yes, in the sense that it has channeled the Sin Nature into a vehicle and a pattern of sinfulness. No in the sense that a person had no choice in becoming what he became. It is far more helpful to consider enculturation, not in the language of “Causes” but of “Conditions”. Poverty is a necessary (or very nearly necessary) condition for the Gestalt of antisocial behavior we generally associate with Cyclical/ Generational Poverty. But it is not a sufficient condition. There is a strong enough relationship to say that they are predictably correlated. But not causal. And that’s a significant difference when we begin to discuss public policy/ theology. The “slash” is there because it is impossible to discuss public policy without discussing theology. There is no amoral “ought”.
Again, there is another caveat that must needs be addressed. Christianity has a long history of lionizing Poverty. “Vocational Poverty produces virtue” is the presupposition of the Vatican. More people than the Pope, too, see vocational Poverty to be a means of spiritual formation – and, logically, a means of grace. But, it is worth differentiating between the modern conception and the classical.
Classic Christianity understood poverty when it inculcated virtue, as being a means of grace not the grace or the grace-giver itself. In other words, Poverty can be used by God to create virtue – but Poverty itself is not virtuous, nor does being poor automatically bestow upon one the status of virtuous. At least not any more than any of myriad struggles and strivings are, in se, markers of or producers of virtue.
Yet, our culture seems to be mistaking this truth, in all quarters. Jesus said, “blessed are those who mourn”; our culture has decided that “the clinically depressed are virtuous”. Certainly, those who struggle to bear up in their faith in the face of major depression are enacting virtue. But not necessarily. Many are depressed because they’re narcissists. Or they’re depressed because they are burdened with guilt and shame and self-loathing. Or they’re depressed because they are refusing to worship God. There are all sorts of reasons. Admittedly, a chemical imbalance with no theological implication is certainly ONE OF MANY causes, but to presuppose that any and everyone who suffers from clinical depression bears no theological, psychological, or behavioral responsibility is to nullify the entire discipline of therapeutic psychology...And Pastoral Counselling! We’re back to Behaviorism.
Or, perhaps a less incendiary example is warranted.
It is been said by many that tragedies were what woke them up to their Spiritual immaturity; it was only a tragedy that caused them to rely on Christ and the Holy Spirit and to walk in holiness and obedience. Does that mean that becoming widowed or orphaned or losing children is virtuous, in and of itself? If so then it means that the death of small children is good!
Or, an even obviouser example. Christ’s death on the cross was simultaneously the greatest means of grace and the most egregious and gargantuan malevolence even committed. It was the singular giver and guarantor of good and yet it was the worst evil ever committed. Jesus’ crucifixion was both the worst crime and the greatest obedience ever committed. Does that mean that the torture and murder of God Himself was good? NO! But it does mean that it ACCOMPLISHED GOOD for those who would appropriate its effects.
Contemporary America is in love with victims. Becoming a victim is virtuous! I’m often reminded of the film, Rob Roy, where Robert MacGregor, a poor Highland Chieftain is speaking of honor with one of the Scottish Great Lairds, the Marquis of Montrose and this exchange happens:
Robert Roy MacGregor: What passes for honor with me is likely the same as what passes with Your Lordship. When my word is given, it is good.
Montrose: Well, you are to be congratulated on such cheaply-bought nobility.
Let those words sink in. Obviously, the Marquis is speaking from a classist position where birth creates inherent superiority. But the sentiment isn’t far off. The point the Marquis is making is that Rob Roy has such a reductionistic view of honor that nearly anyone can attain to being honorable and thereby noble. Similarly, in our day, so many point to their Poverty bone fides as evidence that they themselves are virtuous. Obviously this language isn’t used, but what else explains the fascination our society has not with excellence but with overcoming obstacles.
Our culture is setting forth an incoherent and contradictory set of fables. On one hand Poverty is the cause of all Evil. On the other Poverty imbues the impoverished with virtue. Can both be true? Can Poverty be both a good and an evil, simultaneously? Is it, as Luther said, simul iustus et peccator? Or is Poverty an evil concomitant with living in a fallen world that apart from the ministrations of God creates conditions where gross immorality and viciousness abound, but can, at times, be used as a means of grace to form virtue in the impoverished, through the ministry of the Holy Spirit?
But more simply: is Poverty a social evil that causes men to sin but which crowns those sinners with Virtue?
Or is poverty yet one more bad thing God can bring good out of?
Of course, on this subject, oceans of ink have been, are being, and shall be spilt. And while Jesus does speak, often, about physical wealth and poverty, it is (to keep things short) a gross oversimplification to say, rich=bad; poor=good. The Biblical witness is far more complex. The Biblical witness, while simple is never simplistic.
But perhaps one would ask, but Luke, why even write about this? Well, let me offer a few reasons.
First, when Christian teachers publicly advocate lies, I feel it’s incumbent upon someone to set the record straight.
Second, spiritual formation is critically important in the life of the believer. It really is the sine qua non. For, spiritual formation, is just another way of saying discipleship. The things that pastors point to as being or producing Virtue are things that we are actively telling people to seek to become. When pastors tell people that the poor are Virtuous by virtue of their being in Poverty, what we’re saying is that simply by having less money people can attain Virtue. This is destructive in 3 ways. One, that is a false way of attaining Virtue, and all lies are from Satan. Two, this lays a completely unbiblical and unnecessary burden of guilt upon those who accept the premise that Poverty=Virtue, but who are unwilling to become impoverished to ascend to such Olympian Heights. Three, it confers upon many who are most certainly NOT Virtuous that they are. This promotes a false view of self, which, in the long run, short-circuits the work of the Holy Spirit and only creates Pharisees.
Third, claiming that Poverty is the cause of all social ills amongst the impoverished is a false and destructive heretical anthropology. It takes away moral agency and spiritual responsibility. When done on the scale and scope of a general cultural view, one needn’t even prophesy about what public policies predicated upon such a view will produce. We see it. Rampant sin.
Fourth, and most importantly, it’s a hindrance to the Gospel. The Gospel states that all men are sinners and that, we, of ourselves, have nothing good inside us, but all good must be imputed and imparted to us, by Grace, through faith, by the power of the Holy Spirit. These two fables, simultaneously, tell the vicious that they are virtuous, simply by being poor, and tell them that nothing is their own fault. Granting people unearned Virtue and taking away moral responsibility seems to me to be an excellent way of creating social disintegration. But, hey, it’s not like we have real-world examples to verify my hypothesis.
I love fables; great writers use lies to tell the truth. Fables can do that. They can be stories that get at truth. But they have to get at the truth, otherwise they aren’t art – they’re propaganda.