Wealth is not bad

HOMILY: Amos 6:1b-4-7 | 1 Timothy 6:11-16 | Luke 16: 19-31

Our Gospel today presents Jesus’ reversal of the notion of wealth and of social order. In the old testament, primarily in the pentateuch, and in the first century wealth is highly associated with honour, thus making the Jews in that time live in an honour-driven society. In the old testament, wealth is the means of God to dignify the people whom he loves. Wealth is the sign of his favour upon people whom he blessed. Jesus reverses this with this story. The New Testament notion of wealth is in no way different from that of the New Testament only that the social dimension to wealth is more emphasized. Jesus reminds us of the moral dangers of wealth.

1. Wealth could replace God.

2. Wealth could undermine fundamental relationships.

3. Wealth could make us selfish and individualistic.

n our first reading, we heard the excessive and luxurious lifestyle of the people of Zion. We heard they sleep on ivory beds, eat sumptuously, they work nothing but leisure, drink wine voluptuously, annointed themselves with expensive oil. But they didn’t bother, they didn’t even say a word to rebuke or to emphasise with what happened to the tribe of Joseph. The tribe of Joseph are those who lived the northern part of the kingdom and which fell into corruption, pride and pleasure. Nobody among the people of Zion spoke against the declining morality, making them the lost tribes of Israel.

We have to understand that wealth is not a sin. It’s not even a sin to live modest lifestyle. More so, it’s not sin to be poor and be needy. As a matter of fact, modest life is the goal of our existence. Abundant life is the original plan of God for us. We were made for a modest and abundant life.

But do you know what is sinful and at fault?

Sin lies in the vast chasm or void between the rich man and Lazarus. The widening gap between the poor and the rich. The enormously differing of lifestyle and relationship, the imbalanced distribution of wealth, the lack of sympathy and solidarity, the lack of concern is where sin is found. This gap between the poor and the rich is a social sin, a corporate sinfulness because it reflects something that is wrong in the society. Something is wrong in the collective resolve of the people. Something is wrong in our way of life.

We cannot deny that inequality and the gap is operative and is a pressing concern. We cannot deny that the gap between the poor and the rich is getting wide and relationship seem elusive. The reality of the gap is given. If we have something to eat, if we eat three or five times a day, if we have a roof above us, if we are sent to school, if we have luxuries big or small, then we are given the opportunity to be in the position of power to help. If we have excess, if we have more than what we need, then we are in the position of abundance to share. In these circumstances, we find ourselves in the position to help, and given the chance to give and share.

What the rich man lacked and failed to do was to show concern. He certainly was in the position of power, in a position of power to give and share. He did not bother. He did not life a finger to help.He did not sympathise. He did not care.

Since nobody from the grave came back to life to warn us about this except Christ, we are at the mercy of Christ’s teaching through the Church. The church does not seek to make you live in horror about these teachings but the Church would like us to have the chance to have concern. To care and to help out.

1. The Dignity of the Human Person. Lazarus’ well being was disregarded and the rich man preferred his dogs and his lifestyle over the desire to help out. In the story, all dignity has been deprived of him and his being a child of God was not given notice.

2. Rights and responsibilities; social justice. It is the social responsibility of the rich man to help Lazarus because the bounty he has is God given, and justice and charity is very much called for in this circumstance.

3. Solidarity. Despite having a poor man dying of hunger on his doorstep, the rich man did not bother and went on his excessive lifestyle. He did not lift any finger to help Lazarus, neither did he open his heart to him.

4. Participation. In the old testament, wealth is considered God’s way of dignifying the blessed. It is, however, a stature abused and misused as in any case of any human compliments. The Old Testament offers several ways in helping out the poor. The rich people in the old testament contributed their wealth by giving money to the temple so the temple could feed those who are hungry. Or the remnants of the produce of the field are to be left and be given to the poor. By the fact that a hungry poor man lives right next to him, the rich man failed to contribute.

5. Preferential Option for the Poor and the Vulnerable. The Gospel shows a blatant refusal to help out in the condition of the poor. The rich man deliberately disregarded his social responsibility to help Lazarus and preferred to go on with his lifestyle.

6. Universal Distribution of Earthly Goods. The produce of the earth is for all because the earth belongs to all of us. Right to private property is an important value but there is a higher value, and that is the value of Justice and charity. Therefore, the fruits of the earth should not be hoarded and hence be shared by the virtue of justice tampered with charity.

7. Care for God's creation. Pope Francis says in his Encyclical Laudato Si, the poor are the ones greatly affected by the climate shifts and other effects of the changing global patterns. The are vulnerable to the first hand effects of ecological abuse.