Lectionary: Year C, Proper 13
Text: Luke 12:13-21
Saving: Virtue or Vice
During
uncertain economic times, who could be faulted for wanting to and saving more?
Personal finance advisors recommend three months, six months, and even a full
year’s income to be held as savings and insurance against various kinds of
financial troubles and catastrophes that could hit the average person and
family.
Not everyone
can save, and not everyone has the discipline to save, but saving is generally
considered a desirable act and even looked up to as a virtue in most societies.
This is true not only of North America and Europe, the stereotypical “West”,
but also true of many parts of Asia. There may be other regions, but I’m only
familiar with what I mentioned.
Most
specifically in the United States, we do have Social Security, but it was never
designed to be the sole source of income after our working years. The
cornerstone of retirement is saving enough during our working years. The virtue
of saving is embedded into the history of America. In Misreading Scripture
with Western Eyes, the authors write,
“Scholars have noted that Protestant Christianity (especially
those of Puritan heritage) puts significant emphasis on hard work, frugality and
financial independence. If Roman Catholicism talks about God’s preferential
care for the poor, Protestants believe that ‘God helps those that help
themselves.’ One way this plays out practically is that most Christians
recognize the importance of saving money. Investing and putting money in the
bank for the future or a rainy day is good stewardship and requires and
reinforces another virtue: delayed gratification.”[1]
Conversely,
the authors note that in many ancient and modern Middle Eastern and some Asian cultures,
saving is not considered a virtue and could even be regarded as a vice.
Parable of the Rich Fool
Today’s
reading includes the parable of the rich fool. There is an introductory
narrative that sets the context for Jesus telling this parable. From this
introduction, we are to understand that the problem being illustrated is greed.
But if we set aside what we are supposed to know about this parable and read it
from a 21st century American context, we might wonder what the
problem is.
First, the
land produces abundantly. The parable doesn’t say why. It could be luck, or (as
often is assumed in interpretations of this parable) God’s blessing. But it
could be the result of hard work (or most likely, hard work of his hired hands
and servants – which has some rather close parallels to some of today’s
business and the relationship of owner to employee vs. relationship of
corresponding salary and wages).
From a
modern business perspective, proceeds of a highly profitable season belong to
the owner. Wealth is a private property, to do with it as they see fit. Why
should anyone see a problem with acquiring new and better ways of storing the
wealth? (Again, plenty of parallels with modern capitalism.)
Why
shouldn’t someone who has risked their capital and life not get to enjoy the fruits
of their labor and investing? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to “relax, eat,
drink, be merry?”[2]
If we are
honest with ourselves, don’t we want at least a little bit of this? Wouldn’t it
be nice to have enough stored up so that we don’t have to worry much about
current and future economic turbulences? Don’t we feel like we should deserve
some security for the hard work that we do or have done?
Insatiable Desires
The problem
is that humans tend to want more the more they acquire and save. Arthur Brooks
writes in The Atlantic on this topic,
According to evolutionary psychology, our tendency to
strive for more is perfectly understandable. Throughout most of human history,
starvation loomed closer than it does, for the most part, today. A “rich”
caveman had a few extra animal skins and arrowheads, and maybe a few piles of
seeds and dried fish to spare. With this plenty, he might survive a bad winter.
Our troglodyte ancestors didn’t just want to make it through
the winter, though; they had bigger ambitions. They wanted to find allies and
mates too, with the goal (whether conscious or not) of passing on their genes.
And what would make that possible? Among other things, the accumulation of
animal skins, demonstrating greater competence, prowess, and attractiveness
than the hominid in the next cave over.
Surprisingly, little has changed since then. Scholars have
shown that our acquisitive tendencies persist amid plenty and regularly exceed
our needs. This owes to our vestigial urges—software that still exists in our
brains from ancient times. [3]
Desire for
fame, attractiveness, success, power – these too, are part of our acquisitive
natures. Brooks writes further in the same article,
The insatiable goals to acquire more, succeed conspicuously,
and be as attractive as possible lead us to objectify one another, and even
ourselves. When people see themselves as little more than their attractive
bodies, jobs, or bank accounts, it brings great suffering. Studies show that
self-objectification is associated with a sense of invisibility and
lack of autonomy, and physical self-objectification has a direct relationship with eating disorders and depression
in women. Professional self-objectification is a tyranny every bit as
nasty. You become a heartless taskmaster to yourself, seeing yourself as
nothing more than Homo economicus. Love and fun are sacrificed for
another day of work, in search of a positive internal answer to the
question Am I successful yet? We become cardboard cutouts of
real people.[4]
When we
succumb to the treadmill of more, we stop being fully human. We
sacrifice our own true selves and our relationships with other people in the
pursuit of more and better.
The Rich Fool, Again
Returning to
today’s gospel reading, the introductory narrative was about a brother asking
Jesus to tell his (probably) older brother to divide the family inheritance so
that he could have his share to do with it how he desired (my paraphrase). Here
already, is revealed something that would be understood by those in the
immediate audience, but is not explicitly stated and therefore, often
overlooked by modern readers like us.
We tend to
think of inheritance in monetary terms. Money and other securities can be
easily divided. But in the ancient world, wealth was most commonly found in
land ownership. To divide up the land to distribute inheritance would mean
smaller and smaller plots of land for each generation. Land was generally held
in common by the family. The entire family and extended family would work the
land and the produce would benefit the entire family.
The brother
asking (or even demanding) that Jesus order the other brother to allow the
division to happen is an indication that a division has already occurred in
their relationship, and the division of real estate is desired to finalize the
relational split so that the brother could go his own way, away from the
family.[5]
The
subsequent parable of the rich fool could be imagined similarly to the vision
given by the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come to Ebeneezer Scrooge (borrowing
from Dickens, and really, there seems to be some parallels of this parable with
A Christmas Carol).[6]
I can easily imagine Jesus saying to the brother that came to him, “This is how
things will turn out if you continue on your present path.” The brother has
already begun to cut off relationships, and by the time of the parable’s
telling, he has no one to speak with, save himself. The brother is already more
interested in his own possessions than the family or the community, and yes,
that singular pursuit will lead to great wealth, but to what end and for whose
benefit?
Slavery to Systems
Modern
society, especially what we find ourselves living in, places a high value on
independence and individualism. Achieving personal success is a cultural value.
Society may speak words about valuing families but in practice, tradition,
culture, and social policies prioritize work and money over family. Even those
who would rather value family are often helpless because the societal systems
in place require them to prioritize work, just so they can survive.
Throughout
the gospel of Luke Jesus is described as fighting against the economic systems
of that time which kept people slaves to the system. Whatever economic and
social status one was, there were expectations and requirements. The poor and
slaves obviously had to work for their masters and employers, just to survive.
Those with more wealth and the truly wealthy clearly had more options and
opportunities, yet they were slaves to status itself. In all cases, people were
human-doings and not human-beings.
We live with
different economic, political, and social systems today. But are we any freer?
Are we any less slaves to circumstances, fulfilling what the systems demand and
require of us?
A Different System
The sequel
to the gospel of Luke is the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts, at
least briefly, a new economic and social system does get implemented.
44 All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45
they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all,
as any had need. (Acts 2:44-45 NRSVue)
32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul,
and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they
owned was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles gave
their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon
them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as
owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35
They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had
need. (Acts 4:32-35 NRSVue)
When we read
this, we rebel against it. It goes against everything we think about how the
economy is supposed to be. It sounds so unAmerican. And so, we tend to explain
it away in a number of ways: Perhaps these early believers were
overenthusiastic. Perhaps they took Jesus’ teachings about money and wealth too
far. Perhaps they did what they did because they really did believe Jesus would
be returning very, very soon and they wouldn’t need earthly possessions. Perhaps
Acts is an idealized version of what actually happened.
But could we
at least think a little bit about the possibility that this is what Jesus
actually intended?
Where to Find Satisfaction
Arthur
Brooks, in the article I quoted from earlier, continues,
As we grow older in the West, we generally think we should
have a lot to show for our lives—a lot of trophies. According to numerous
Eastern philosophies, this is backwards. As we age, we shouldn’t accumulate
more to represent ourselves, but rather strip things away to find our true
selves—and thus, to find happiness and peace…
In truth, our formula, Satisfaction = getting what
you want, leaves out one key component. To be more accurate, it should be:
Satisfaction = what you have ÷ what you want
All of our evolutionary and biological imperatives focus us
on increasing the numerator—our haves. But the more significant
action is in the denominator—our wants…
The secret to satisfaction is not to increase our haves—that
will never work (or at least, it will never last). That is the treadmill
formula, not the satisfaction formula. The secret is to manage our wants.[7]
In the
remaining portion of the article, Brooks lists a number of things a person can
do to help manage our wants and thus improve the possibility of finding
satisfaction and happiness.
One step is
to increase our sharing. This includes material possessions, but also includes
things like experience and knowledge. Even experience and knowledge can be
hoarded as a way of maintaining status and power. Let them go. Share.
Another step
is to continue to build and grow relationships with family and friends, the
ones that matter. Reduce and eliminate activities and relationships that exist
only or primarily to maintain or enhance status and position. Share time.[8]
A third step
is to think smaller. This can be actual downsizing – getting rid of physical
stuff, large and small, that weigh us down and distract us. But it also means
noticing the small things in life, the things that often get overlooked because
we’re too busy doing something else, too busy thinking about the past or
future, or too busy going from one place to another. Share moments of wonder.
The question
isn’t whether we should save or not. The question isn’t whether the act of
saving is a virtue or a vice. What is prudent and necessary varies depending on
cultural, social, and economic contexts.
The question
should be, are there ways in which we are sacrificing things that matter –
being in community with family, friends, and God – for the empty pursuit of trying
to satisfy our wants with more money, status, achievements, and the like?
Could it be
that by reducing both what we have and what we want, we can become more
dependent on one another? And what if that was one of the pillars of the
kingdom of heaven – that we are dependent on one another in a mutually sharing
community?
Some things
to think about, especially whenever we pray, “May your kingdom come.”[9]
[1]
Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better
Understand the Bible, Kindle reader location approximately 2061 to 2065.
[2]
Luke 12:19.
[3]
How
Wanting Less Leads to Satisfaction - The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/03/why-we-are-never-satisfied-happiness/621304/)
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels,
Kindle reader, approximate location 3602.
[6]
This observation comes, in part, from Feasting on the Gospels—Luke, Volume 2,
Kindle reader, approximate location 776.
[8]
Science
Says the More of This You Give, the Happier You'll Be (Hint: It's Not Money) |
Inc.com (https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/happiness-emotional-intelligence-how-to-be-happy-how-to-spend-time.html)
[9]
Luke 11:2b.
No comments:
Post a Comment