I hardly have to surf the web anymore... since I started my new job my readers have been sending me more links than ever! The link to the Opus V from Harry Winston Rare Timepieces comes from John, and the "personal time robot" -- as some commenters are calling it -- certainly looks cool. For $137,000, it had better.
So my question is this: is it morally acceptable for a Christian to own such an extravagant item? Couldn't excess money be used in ways that honor God more? That leads me to wonder if there's a moral limit to how much money Christians should spend supporting theirselves and their families. Are vows of poverty necessary, or can Christians own property and enjoy their wealth to some limited degree? Or is the degree unlimited, so long as the Christian gives 10% to the church? Is it simply a matter of "giving this much is acceptable, but giving more would be better"?
Solomon teaches in Ecclesiastes that we should enjoy the fruits of our labor, and he was fantastically wealthy, but then he was a head of state and most of his wealth belonged to the government, not to him personally (except that's how kings worked back then). Also, Ecclesiastes is largely about the futility of life, not the glory of wealth. Many influential Christians have been wealthy, but Jesus wasn't and neither was Paul, nor any of the apostles as far as I'm aware. As Charles Foster Kane famously remarked, "You know, Mr. Bernstein, if I hadn't been very rich, I might have been a really great man."
There's nothing wrong with wealth, but there are certainly some wrong ways it can be used or wasted.
Does that mean you are contemplating a purchase of the Opus V? I won't hate you for it.
I've never understood the idea that it is morally preferable to earn less money working a leisurely job rather than working harder, earning more, donating more to church and charity, and still having more left over for yourself. Who says that the guy who chooses money over leisure should have to give all his extra money away, when the guy who chooses leisure over money does not have to give most of his leisure time away?
Methinks a large subset of Christianity falls for the quasi-Marxist view of wealth as a zero-sum game.
Michael,
The 10% percent for tithing was the Old Testament standard. Considering that Christ fulfilled the law (and I doubt you follow many of the other portions of Old Testament law) we should look to what the New Testament says agout tithing. In the the Gospels through Revelation, we are told to give as Christ compels us. The 10% isn't mentioned. So, based on prayer, reading the Word and seeking counsel we should all give as much or as little as we feel God is commanding us.
All of that, and yet I think that 10% is probably a pretty good standard. I guess I just wanted to make sure things were clear.
Freak: I'm going to buy one for each arm.
X: I completely agree with you, I hope it didn't come across otherwise. I think our culture glorifies poverty in some ways, maybe to compensate for our wealth? We totally condescend to the poor both here and around the world.
Megan: I agree.
There is the thing about the rich man and the camel and the eye of a needle -- I notice he said "it is hard", not "it is impossible" though. Hey, it's hard for a poor man too.
Poverty is a fine thing for a monk, as wealth is as great a distraction from an entirely devoted and devout life as, say, sex. But for most people, wealth is as necessary as sex. The important thing for everyone to realise is that money is an imperfect measure of value; there are very valuable things I can do which have zero fiscal worth, and there are very expensive things I can do (buying an Aston-Martin DB-7 or a time-keeping robot) which have little real value.
That's why "10%" misses the point a little bit (more so now than in old testament times). More might be too little, and less might be too much, depending on all kinds of things.
I think the most important thing from a Christian stand point is to ask yourself why we are here? We are here to follow God and tell others about Christ. It does not mean we all have to be a pastor or priest, but that we should try to live by example and help people as Christ would have. If he blesses us with money or any gift for that matter, we should use it to live as we see fit after prayer and also use it to help the church and to help other people after prayer. It's not our money anyways, it’s a blessing from God. If we don't use what we are given wisely, it will be taken from us. At a minimum, if we don't use it as God wants us too, it will become a burden or idol to us and will cause us to be separated from God or Christ.
Here's an interesting point about extravagant things: The money doesn't just bring you a thing, it goes to the people who made the thing. So the $137,000 lets the man or woman who made the Opus V roll money back into their company and maybe develop something better. Even if they don't, it goes to their landlord, their grocer, their kids' school tuition. Lots of people will have jobs because that money went out of your pocket.
I can give the church my time and talent but the only thing I have for those people is my money.
Justene: That's a good point, which is why I think capitalism is the most just economic system. However, creating ridiculous watches like this merely to transfer wealth seems inefficient. Yes, spending money is good overall, but giving it may be better in some cases, especially if it cna be given to those who cannot earn it. I don't think the government should be taking care of poor people, but that means that private citizens and charities will have to step up to the plate.
Michael-
I've heard Matthew 19:24 described various ways:
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
What I usually hear is something about the 'Eye of the Needle' being some sort of geological formation in the desert that Jesus' listeners were all familiar with. With some struggling, the camel could eventually squeeze through. I've even heard Pastors use this explanation.
But, to me, this just seems silly. I think the scripture means exactly what it says. But, first, look what it says. This scripture is talking specifically about a "rich man". Note that it doesn't say a "man with wealth". There's a difference. A rich man is a man who is identified by his wealth. It is impossible for him to get to Heaven, because he only believes in himself. His wealth is his only concern, there is no need or room for Jesus in his life.
I grew up with a man with money in my church. He got in on the early days of Wal-Mart, and helped Mr. Walton with a few of his first stores. But, he was not a 'rich man'. He was a very Godly man that had been blessed with wealth. His wealth was not flaunted, it was not what he was identified by. When the church was in need of money, he would always go to the Pastor privately, and give what he could (not everyone in the church knew that, but I'm in somewhat of a privileged position to know such things). He used his wealth the way God intended, with the knowledge that it belonged to God.
Now, as for the original question. Would a $137,000 watch be something that a "rich man" would have, or would it be something a Godly man with wealth would have?