By Dr. Greg Cochran, ICC Fellow

The world-famous womanizer Aristotle Onassis once quipped, “If women didn’t exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning.” Onassis had a nearly uncountable amount of money and more than a few wives and girlfriends. Whatever Onassis proved to be, he was no hypocrite. He lived out his belief in spending time making money and spending money to get time with women.  

Most readers here might scoff at the attitude displayed by the shipbuilding tycoon Onassis. Money is not meant to purchase, persuade, or even attract women, right? But if the point of money is not to attract women, then what is the point? What is the value of money? What is the better use of its capacity?  

Philosophers, theologians, and economists have debated money for centuries. As a matter of fact, money was one of the themes that Martin Luther addressed in his famous 95 Theses, which he tacked to the church door at Wittenberg, catalyzing the Protestant Reformation. 

Luther took particular issue with the pope and with the Roman Catholic Church for using the money of poor saints to build St. Peter’s Basilica via purchasing indulgences from the pope. Here are Theses 82 and 86 of Luther’s 95 Theses: 

1. [82] Such as: “Why does not the pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church?” The former reason would be most just; the latter is most trivial.  
2. [86} Again, “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers?”  

Luther made clear that money was not for securing indulgences or for building elaborate facilities on the backs of poor saints — especially when the Pope had already amassed much wealth.  

Luther demonstrated concern for suffering souls by making clear that if the pope cared for the souls, then he would be motivated by love to grant indulgences and see those souls delivered. To frame the matter of accelerating souls into the presence of God as an economic one — equating the giving of funds for the construction of man-made buildings — was to trivialize the grave matter of the eternal state of the human soul.  

From Christ forward, Christians have understood that money (and how it is used) has the potential for good or evil. Paul, of course, notes that loving money for its own sake is a root of all sorts of evil (1 Timothy 6:10), informing Christians that stockpiling wealth and using money as a scorecard is evil. On the other hand, this same Apostle Paul devoted years and much energy to raising money to help suffering saints in Jerusalem.  

While several New Testament books mention this collection, Paul devotes specific attention to it in 2 Corinthians, chapters eight and nine. Indeed, the common Christian practice that we call the Sunday offering finds its origins here in the collection for suffering saints:  

“The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:6-7, ESV) 

Many important truths are contained here regarding giving to Christians in need. The giving is not compelled by guilt, but rather by the spiritual compulsion of participation and the joy that such a missional mindset brings to the believer. In addition, the need is not the only issue in question. The end goal is not merely meeting needs — such a needs-only relationship might produce codependency. Or worse, a person might be dehumanized by being treated only economically. Rather, the end goal — according to Paul — is further bountiful reaping of good works empowering greater works to come. In other words, money is given productively — to produce God’s bounty — and not given merely for need and consumption.  

Following Luther, John Calvin clarified this point helpfully for Christians: Money is not meant to feed consumption. Rather, it should produce God’s bounty in human thriving. Calvin challenged the church’s historic teaching against usury and helped to explain the difference between consumer lending and productive lending. One, consumer lending, amounted to manipulation and bondage and was forbidden.  

Productive lending, on the other hand, was good and right because it produced more potential good for people to produce good works. Productive lending upheld the worth of individuals and their private property. If a neighbor borrows a donkey from another neighbor, then he should pay some amount to borrow the animal for a time, compensating the compliant neighbor for potential lost time and upholding the right of the neighbor to hold property in private and improve his position toward productivity. But the neighbor might borrow the donkey so he could be more productive. This dynamic played a critical role in the further development of the Protestant work ethic, which shaped the Western world and helped produce the superabundance of affluence available today.  

So, the question for Christians today (after capitalism) should still be answered after the manner of Paul’s appeal to the Corinthians: Give to suffering saints in a way that increases God’s bounty, producing human thriving. Practically, what might this look like in the real world? 

To read more stories, visit the ICC Newsroom. For interviews, please email [email protected].