Who Do You Love?

Money and righteousness seem to be strange bedfellows. I've been thinking about both lately, perhaps because of a sermon I recently heard/delivered, perhaps because of the economy, perhaps for other reasons not to be named here. In any case, in Christendom money and righteousness have long been pitted against one another or seen as the best of friends, depending on the circles in which one is a member. The same was true in Paul's day, with ascetics living in the desert on the one hand and members of the social elite in the makeup of the early churches on the other. There were even televangelists (well, they would have been if there were television back then) promising God would bless His followers with good careers, nice homes and lots of money; after all, God wants you to be happy! It is interesting and eerily parallel to the present that these proto-televangelists (Paul calls them false teachers) are the subject of discourse of 1 Timothy.

In a pattern common to the letter, in 1 Timothy 6 Paul addresses a specific problem he sees with these false teachers, and then suggests a remedy. He constructs this last section of the letter as a chiasm, which when displayed greatly helps the modern reader understand the flow of the passage:

a. A description of false teachers (vv. 3-5)
b. A proper view of money for the believer (vv. 6-8)
c. The love of money (vv. 9-10)
c'. The love of God (vv. 11-16)
b'. A proper view of money for the rich believer (vv. 17-19)
a'. A description of teachers of the Truth (vv. 20-21)

Without getting into too much detail, the problem is that these false teachers are proclaiming that "godliness is a means to financial gain," which is leading to internal strife within the community of believers (or at least among the sub-category of false teachers and their followers) (vv. 4-5). Paul attempts to restore order and unity by reminding the church that while money is temporal, life is eternal. Thus, as long as a person has his or her needs met financially, that should suffice (vv. 6-8). He then commands the rich Christians to be generous. Generosity is their privilege and duty, and it comes with eternal rewards (vv. 17-19). Paul finally finishes off the chiasm with words of instruction for Timothy, who is to "guard what has been entrusted to [his] care" (v. 20).

While there is much more that could be said about the previous verses, I would like to focus on the center of the chiasm--Paul's main point. What I believe he is doing is taking Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount, "You cannot serve both God and Money" (Matt. 6:24), and applying them to the Ephesian context. Paul draws a contrast between the false teachers' love of money and the true Christ-followers' love of God. He argues, "The love of money is a root of all kinds of evil...but you, man of God...pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, endurance and gentleness" (vv. 10-11, italics added).

This is where it gets weird. This is where things don't make sense. Here's what does make sense--Jesus tells a rich young ruler to give everything he has to the poor, because it's more likely that a camel will pass through the eye of a needle than that a rich person will get into heaven. The opposite of the love of money should be giving it all away and living the ascetic lifestyle. But that's not what Paul says in 1 Timothy 6. Paul says that the opposite of trying to get rich is to get righteousness. The opposite of the love of money is...just love. You might still get rich. You might instead become poor. Your financial status might not change at all. You must be content with what you have.

What is one to do with such an idea? A millionaire becomes a Christian, starts giving away hundreds of thousands of dollars, and still lives in a mansion. A homeless woman finds salvation in Christ, and lives out the rest of her days in a refrigerator box. A middle-class man tries to make ends meet and provide for his family, and yet his focus is to be on matters of faith? But I've got bills to pay and mouths to feed! he screams to himself. Paul's words again allude to the Sermon on the Mount: "Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear...But seek first [God's] kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." (Matt. 6:25, 33). But it's not fair; it doesn't make sense; it's not the American way!

But then again, it does make sense. Godliness reminds us that ultimately we are not in charge of our finances (as one of my coworkers puts it, "We're all temporary employees"). Faith teaches us that God's grace is not constrained to what is calculable. Pursuing righteousness does lead to divine provision for our physical needs, although endurance may teach us we have misjudged what our needs truly are.

Money versus righteousness. The pursuit of financial gain versus the pursuit of God. Envy and strife versus contentment in all situations. Strange bedfellows, indeed.