As we have seen in recent posts, Basil of Caesarea's stance on wealth and poverty is blunt and uncompromising, but also wholly relevant to today, where consumerism has achieved almost god-like status.
This piece shows that Basil was also a keen and unflinching observer of human nature - and human excuses. The writer identifies
'the human tendency to adjust the definition of "need" to fit one's current level of income'.
Basil, he says, was on to this 1600 years ago. His homily (practical sermon) on the man in Jesus' parable, I Will Tear Down My Barns [and Build Bigger Ones] treats the barns not so much as symbols of wealth but rather as representing our definition of needs based on our circumstances.
'In effect', continues the article, 'Basil says that if we never have any extra to share, this is due to the fact that whenever we find ourselves in possession of a surplus, we immediately adjust our definition of need to fit the new situation.'
(You say) "I will pull down my barns and build larger ones.” But if you fill these larger ones, what do you intend to do next? Will you tear them down yet again only to build them up once more? What could be more ridiculous than this incessant toil, laboring to build and then laboring to tear down again?
In his sermon "To the Rich", Basil sees this as a form of madness. "Those who have acquired wealth and have great possessions, desire more of the same, nursing the sickness by perpetual accumulation. Having so much here and now fails to bring them happiness, since they grieve over what they don't have, and convince themselves they're lacking. 'We're poor!', they say. And it's true, because a poor person lacks much, and much are you lacking because of your insatiable desires! What was it that killed Naboth? [1 Kings 21] Was it not King Ahab's greed for his vineyard?"
And so, Basil concludes, you commit injustice to so many when you could have helped them - which applies to any level on the scale of wealth.
I have read several of these and find them very thought provoking and challenging. But are you trying to say, is Basil saying, that possession of *anything* is evil? That by owning my own home and cars etc I am committing injustice to those who have no home or car? A couple of months ago I decided I wanted and then purchased an mp3 player. Was this sin?
ReplyDeleteThank you for such a direct question, Jeffrey. I can tell it comes from deeper inside you than just the intellect.
ReplyDeleteBear in mind (as one of the posts said) that the context of Basil's fulminations was a time of severe hardship, food shortages, etc. Today it would have been classed as a humanitarian crisis and charities would be mobilising. In such a context, selfish grasping of what is MINE (and even worse, still planning to get more for ME) is morally and spiritually criminal. Few could disagree.
Basil's underlying principles (also cited in my posts) are sustainability, justice, love in practice, obedience to Jesus' commands. Basil wrote at length on the 'rich young ruler' in Jesus' parable, and he does indeed say that the man would not have gained "great possessions" if he had been doing as he should and sharing with those in need.
Other early writers were admittedly more moderate, taking the line that giving to the poor was a New Testament command but that it was all right to have possessions as long as they didn't possess you. I gave various examples in my book, "Pilgrims of a Common Life" (Herald Press, 1987), chapters 4 and 5.
I guess every Christian has to wrestle with this one before God, Jeffrey. Which stance is truer to the heart of Jesus? Many are the examples from Christian history, from Basil himself through to Wilberforce and the Clapham Group, who for a time had lived wealthy but who died poor. Basil gave it away; Wilberforce et al used it strategically, funding charitable enterprises that would alleviate and help to overcome poverty.