We normally place ‘wealth’ and ‘poverty’ on opposite ends of a continuum, but the title above seems to imply something different. Can the poor be rich? Initially, I do not want to imply some romanticized view of the poor that discounts the terrible suffering and dehumanization they experience on a daily basis. Nor can we simply spiritualize the discussion and obviate ourselves of any responsibility by saying, ‘they will receive riches in heaven’. The kingdom of God pertains to present-day realities as well as those yet to come.

I merely want to work on rehabilitating our notion of ‘wealth’ so that it moves closer to ‘poverty’ on our imaginary continuum?

Our English word, ‘wealth’ can be defined in a number of ways:

•    ‘The state of being rich and affluent; having a plentiful supply of material goods and money’ (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

•    ‘Wealth (or net worth) of a person or nation is the value of assets owned net of liabilities owed (to foreigners in the case of a nation) at a point in time’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth)

•    ‘Weal; welfare; prosperity; good; well-being; happiness; joy’ (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wealth)

The first two definitions associate ‘wealth’ with goods, supply, and material assets; the third represents a much older translation, coming from the middle English word, ‘wele’ and carrying connotations of ‘well-being’, ‘the general good’, or ‘finding that which is best for someone’.

Is there a way to reconcile these definitions in order to bridge the yawning gap between ‘wealth’ and ‘poverty’?

Let me draw a few simple conclusions (and invite you to contribute others!):

1.    The ‘wealthy’ have moral responsibility to provide for the needs of the poor. When they exploit the poor, God issues His edict of judgement against them (Ezekiel 16:49-50).

2.    The ‘poor’ represent those esteemed by God because they trust wholeheartedly upon Him to care for their material needs (see Matthew 5:3; compare with Luke 6:20).

NB: However, we need to be careful of reading subtle Gnostic interpretations into our ‘spiritual’ reading of poverty, as if to imply that they don’t need material things, or can just put their hope upon future spiritual blessings.

3.    The ‘lowly’ can be those who are materially well off (wealthy), but who decide to associate themselves with the ‘poor’ and use their blessings to assist others. Jesus praises such people (Matthew 18: 1-5; 23:11; Luke 14:7-14; James 4:10).

4.    The ‘wealthy’ can be those who are spiritually, emotionally, and relationally ‘poor’ (Mark 10:25); and thus this blog could be entitled, ‘the poverty of wealth’.

5.    The ‘poor’, in a sense, already have a portion of ‘well-being’ because they understand and practice kingdom principles of trust and dependency upon God.

6.    The ‘poor’, therefore, have much to teach the ‘wealthy’ about what is truly good.

In light of the points above, we need to be careful of defining ‘wealth’ solely upon the basis material surplus, as if perpetuating a form that of reductionistic materialism. Wealth involves more than just money but includes ethics, values, and relationships; or, to borrow from the third definition above, ‘welfare’ and ‘well-being’, hinting at some holistic good. Ministry to the ‘poor’, alternatively, needs to involve looking for the ‘good’ that already exists within their attitudes, values, and relationships and supplementing these with sustainable resources to care for their material necessities.

And thus, at the heart of the issue is the relationship between the ‘wealthy’ and the ‘poor’, as well as what the ‘poor’ contribute to the ‘wealthy’. The continuum tightens (but never dissolves); power relations move in both ways to foster communal ‘good’.