The first reading and the Gospel seem to cast a cold eye on the emptiness of possession or wealth. “Vanities of vanity” actually refers to the effort to amass wealth for inheritance’s sake. The Gospel warns of the demand made on the man who stores up treasures for himself in place of making himself rich in the sight of God.This warning about possession or wealth can very easily lead us into an invective/diatribe/tirade against affluence, prosperity or riches. It can become an occasion to praise poverty with its attendant virtue like detachment etc. Yet, it is also true that when one is poor, very quickly one can concoct a theology in which the rich are ridiculed or disparaged while the poor are praised. One often gives anecdotal/subjective evidence to prove one’s point... like so and so is poor but is indeed very happy unlike so and so is rich but is unhappy. The truth is that poverty sucks or is dreadful and to praise poverty sounds a bit like subtle propaganda. The phenomenon of sour grapes describes it best. The point is Jesus is not against wealth. He is warning against greed and avarice.
On the one hand, possession, or to possess, is related to our sense of security, therefore, an inherent part of our make-up as a human person. For example, why is “land” or territory so important? Israel was given the Promised Land described as the “land of milk and honey”. What may be missed out in the vision of the Promised Land is the relationship between Israel and God—a relationship of trust and security of which “the Promised Land” would be the concrete sacramental sign or manifestation of that relationship of trust. Put in another way, God to Israel says: If you put your trust in me, if you put your security in me, where you are is the Promised Land.
On the other hand, it is greed or avarice that drives our rapacious appetite to accumulate wealth. There is something about possessing which can lead to self-destruction. Instead of a relationship of “trust” in God as the Psalmist so aptly put it: O Lord, you have been our refuge (read = God is my security), we place our trust upon material wealth. We need more to hedge/protect against uncertainty. Perhaps this harkens back to the days when life was more contingent on one’s ability to hunt and on the availability of scarce natural resources, the ability to have some buffer before a famine strikes. We need to ensure our survival. Hence, we amass, accumulate, we gather, we collect and we hoard. It is as primal as that.
Yet, our survival is for not itself. The very desire of a person to have offspring in order to leave our inheritance shows that we are not entirely “self-centred”. Greed is just a symptom of our basic desire to survive gone awry or off-tangent. When we fail to trust God we tend to look for security elsewhere and that’s when greed or avarice comes in.
Wealth or possessions in themselves cannot be bad as we need them to ensure our material well-being. Therefore, our challenge today is the prevailing philosophy that it is not enough. Our problem is not the accumulation of wealth. Our problem is that “it is not enough”. For some of us, when greed and avarice sets into this instinct for survival, “it is never enough”. Buffet is one phenomenon that highlights this philosophy that “nothing is enough”. We ply our plates with more food than we need. The measure of our greed is the measure of the wastage of food at the end of a buffet. [1]
It is not about being rich or being poor and about which is better. Survival cuts across the line between rich and poor and therefore greed or avarice can strike anyone. In fact, it is often those who were poor who when they become rich, do not understand the self-consuming desire of greed or avarice. Imelda Marcos is a perfect example. She came from poverty and when she became the First Lady, she collected her now famous 3000 pairs of shoes.
We are challenged today to look for our security in God. “Only in God will my soul be at rest, from Him comes my hope, my salvation”. When our security is in God, our possession or wealth becomes relativised. They are important but they will not dictate “the way we move or have our being”. The vow of poverty the religious brothers, sisters and priests take is not because they love poverty. Poverty is a reminder that our security is not to be found in material possession as echoed in the 2nd Reading which asks us to direct our thoughts on heavenly things. When we have escaped the prison of avaricious possessing, we will perhaps discover that the greatest possession is that of freedom; freedom not to be shackled by greed or avarice. The greatest possession is the freedom to live secure in the trust of a God who never fails to provide.
FOOTNOTE:
[1]We struggle to balance the tension between what we want and what we need. Our whole environmental endeavour is enervated by this lack of conversion from the principle of want to the principle of need. One of Murphy’s Laws states that “Work expands to fill up whatever free time that you have” is perhaps applicable here. The principle of “want” is akin to this particular law because our level of consumption is dictated by “want” and not by need. It seems that we want bigger cars and bigger houses etc… not that we need them. What is at stake is the sustainability of our consumption based on “want”. To save our environment, we need a genuine conversion from the principle of want to the principle of need. It should be “need” which dictates how we consume. Beyond that, it’s often greed.
