It has been remarked that Ireland leapt from the pre-modern era to the post-modern age without going through modernity. [1] The remark basically described the immense change that the Irish society underwent. A feature of this change was the increase of wealth. In the past, the main export of Ireland had been her people. There are 4 Provinces in Ireland—Leinster, Ulster, Connaught and Munster. The fifth province refers to the Irish Diaspora and we have benefited from their presence. For the first time, in those heady Celtic Tiger years, emigrant Irish people were returning home. The entry into the European Union has brought wealth of unimaginable proportion into the history of Ireland.This is where we enter the world of our Gospel. We measure wealth or riches from an economic point of view. In the time of Jesus, being poor was not a measure of possession but rather a measure of one’s social position. Rich or poor were basically social terms. Today, possessions, riches or wealth do determine one’s social standing. But, during the time of Jesus, to be high in social standing, that is, to be rich or wealthy basically meant that a person had power to acquire possessions, meaning that one is rich because one can wrestle or obtain wealth from those who are powerless. There is a relationship between being rich and being poor, in other words, rich does not mean possession of wealth but in reality, it implies the ability to forcibly obtain it from the poor. This definition of "rich" is not unfamiliar to us. You experience this in the structure of our society as you would have noticed that those who are powerful, through pitiless plundering, determine the fate of those who are powerless.
In biblical times, the powerless are the orphans who have no adults to protect their rights and widows who have no sons to protect them from exploitation. Hence you find that the description of the poor always includes the widows and the orphans—the poor, the widows and the orphans. Thus, the categories “rich” and “poor” for Jesus may be understood by us as the “powerful who are greedy” and the “socially unfortunate who are defenceless”. From here, we enter into the Lunar New Year.
The Chinese or Lunar New Year is marked by this pre-occupation with wealth. “Fatt Choy” or “Fa Cai” is all about increasing wealth. May you be blessed with prosperity and wealth! You know, in those days, when we were poorer, but the Ringgit could still float above water, angpows were RM1.10. The numbers or amount cannot add up to an odd number and so RM1 was ruled out as inappropriate. Subsequently, it became RM2. Nowadays, angpows can be denominated as 118, 238, 328 or 888 because the recitation of the numbers all makes a reference to the Cantonese sounds for “to prosper”.
So, right smack in this focus on wealth and prosperity, the Beatitudes seem to be saying otherwise as it appears to bless those who have no wealth and condemns those who have. Note the difference between Luke’s Beatitudes and Matthew’s. Luke addresses the materially “poor” and not the “poor in spirit”. Matthew “spiritualises” poverty whereas Luke’s poor is more “earthy”, more concretely here and now. This subtle distinction gives the impression that Jesus condemned that wealth.
Here, in light of the Chinese New Year celebration and the Gospel demands of the Beatitudes, clarifications might be helpful. First, Jesus did not condemn wealth in itself. Wealth, riches or possessions are therefore good and are necessary for the generation of good. The wisdom of St Teresa Avila helps understand wealth as a good or a bonum. She said, “Money may be the devil’s excreta but it is certainly a good fertiliser”. Smart woman! Second, He did not glorify poverty. He did not approve of abject poverty or privation and neither did he give His blessing to starvation. Granted that Jesus neither condemns wealth nor glorifies poverty, we now enter the province of principles or morality. How do we to obtain and how do we use our wealth?
Firstly, in the manner of obtaining our wealth, there really is no need to talk about it. It is as simple as through honest means. It means that one must be just in the accumulation of wealth. This is where Liberation Theology’s concern kicks in because it addresses concretely the poor in our midst and how our structures in the accumulation of wealth are less than ideal—structures which are desperately in need of liberation but better still, in need of redemption. Secondly, it is in the use of wealth that we enter into the heart of today’s reading. Religious (eg: DSP, FMM, SJ) take the vow of poverty because they follow Christ poor. An explanation for vowing the evangelical counsels of poverty, obedience and chastity is that they follow the pattern of Christ poor, humble and chaste. Thus, the renunciation of wealth and the condemnation of wealth are two different things. We follow Christ poor because His renunciation of wealth is His proclamation of His reliance on God. This is where wealth’s weakness is exposed. Often our over-dependence on wealth makes us less trusting in a God who will provide. Muslims believe that Allah has 100 names. Well, one of God’s other names is “providence”. If there is anything negative about wealth, riches or possession, it is this: they stifle our trust in God.
In conclusion, Christ’s renunciation of wealth is not a glorification of poverty. Instead, it is a proclamation that providence can be trusted. Wealth is good but it has a weakness, making us think that it is dependable. In truth, only God can be depended on. So, today as we celebrate Chinese New Year, let our wealth grow, let our riches multiply but more than that, let our dependence and reliance on God grow even greater and stronger. Let that be our constant prayer.
FOOTNOTE:
[1] A way to understand this leap can be generalised by how we approach knowledge. In the pre-modern era, knowledge is “certain” because it is backed by authorities and the main authority in Western Civilisation is the Church. In modernity, knowledge is ascertained through science. Scientific knowledge is basically the criterion for our knowing. And the authority that resided in the Church shifted to political structures as we experience the rise of national consciousness. Finally, in the post-modern age, there is great distrust of power and structures and so knowledge is not obtained by science alone but also includes perhaps revelation (which is pre-modern) and intuition etc.
