300 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 49, Number 4 • Winter 2010 • December

Poverty and Wealth in the

Orthodox Spirituality (with special
reference to St. John Chrysostom)
By Nicu Dumitraşcu
Abstract: This essay deals with the right relation we should have to material wealth in modern society, a
society often marked by rank consumerism. Material goods are given to humans only to be managed for
the benefit of all people, regardless of faith or race. This ethical stance does not attack or seek to abolish
the right to private property, but restores it to its proper place. Specifically, patristic spirituality, such as
that articulated by St. John Chrysostom, does not invalidate the principle of individual ownership, but
corrects it, meaning that, while owners are owners in relation to the poor, they are only managers of
wealth in relation to God.

Key Terms: St. John Chrysostom, patristic spirituality, material creation, spiritual wealth, wealth and
salvation.

The Dynamic Relation(ship)
between Poverty and Wealth
In Scripture, the relation between poverty and
wealth has an additional ascending dimension,
namely that while in the Old Testament, the spir-
itual richness of poverty is embraced, in the New
Testament, the texts go further, stating that the
poor are to be recognized as privileged heirs of the
coming kingdom of heaven.1
In this way, we can say that Christianity has
given humankind a new moral and religious guid-
ance regarding earthly goods. Jesus Christ was not a
social reformer in the modern sense of the word; he
was neither an economist nor a sociologist. Instead,
through three parables about the rich (Lk 12:16-
21; 16:19-31; 18:18-25), among other teachings,
Jesus preaches the overthrow of the social princi-
ples of that time on religious, rather than social,
grounds. When the parables are read closely, we
see that they do not condemn wealth itself, but
they condemn the rich who are without faith and
compassion.
Patristic literature articulates a conception of
poverty and wealth in right relation, which brings
spiritual balance. According to the creative Word
of God, there are no rich or poor; all are equal be-
fore God. Therefore, human wisdom is the ability
of each person to understand the right measure of
one’s own needs, avoiding both the over-abundance
of wealth and the deprivation of poverty.2 In this
situation, if one succeeds in satisfying all one’s
earthly needs, can one be considered “poor”? The
answer is yes, if we take into account that the most
important human needs are the spiritual needs of souls.
In the Eastern conception of spirituality, the com-
mon view is that the poverty that can truly destroy
us is not the material one, but the spiritual one,
for whoever loses his or her soul is lost forever.
Contemporary society operates with a different
paradigm. Secularization has favored the progress of
science and technology, and this has paved the way

Nicu Dumitraşcu, Ph.D. is dean of the faculty of Orthodox Theology at the University of Oradea, Romania.


C 2010 Wiley Periodicals and Dialog, Inc.
 Poverty and Wealth in the Orthodox Spirituality • Nicu Dumitraşcu
for spiritual regression.3 Under a false sense of au-
tonomy that seems to flatter its pride, humanity has
become a prisoner of the material world, wherein
we each are estranged from God. In many coun-
tries, human society is no longer based on religious
values which, in the Orthodox tradition, include
asceticism and sacrifice, but instead is based on the
ephemeral and delusive pleasures offered by secular
society.
By contrast, the Orthodox tradition asserts that
humanity cannot find its purpose here on earth but
only in the heavenly, supra-existential world. A big
part of the reason for this is the fact of sin. Because
of sin, human beings are in a permanent tension
between the “flesh” and the soul, between tempta-
tion and asceticism, between the laws of matter and
spirit. This permanent struggle outlines two ways
of thinking, two different mentalities.
Secularism fully merges with the materialistic
mentality because it promotes simply running away
from the supra-existential reality. It does not strug-
gle with sin, but simply takes refuge under the um-
brella of pseudo-Christian values. Orthodox spiri-
tuality, on the other hand, emphasizes the human
capacity to defeat sin in (and through) the body
through an exercise of will and the restraint of
temptations that come upon one continually.
Human aspirations toward eternity and true hap-
piness are obtained by reversing this faulty relation-
ship between wealth and poverty. The most telling
example of this reversal is provided by St. John
Chrysostom, when he speaks about the moral supe-
riority of servants over their masters, as the servants
obtain an esteemed spiritual state through their la-
bor, self-discipline, and intelligence. While the own-
ers waste their lives in drink, luxury, and dissipa-
tion, slaves stand up and fulfill all tasks given them.
They do it with a Christian conscience, therefore
they are no longer servants, but truly free.4 The
servant is thus transformed from a passive object
into an active subject via the disciplined enactment
of a higher passion.
Therefore, we can talk about a servitude imposed
from the outside (ascribed) and one assumed from
the inside (acquired), the latter being much worse
than the former. Chrysostom understood the para-
dox of wealth that makes you poor and poverty that
301
can enrich you, because he had experienced both.
He sold his own property and used it to help the
poor, convinced that only in so doing could he
truly serve God. When he came into contact with
people he treated everyone equally, with the same
love, the same patience, the same respect. He was
aware that the more goods you hold here on earth,
the less you will possess in the other world. His ac-
tions perfectly fit the parameters of the new system
of values that could build and develop a Christian
society.
The Interdependence of
Personal Gifts
The world always has been divided into rich and
poor, but while most believe that the rich ensure
the financial stability of a society, paradoxically,
they are more detached from community than those
with modest incomes. (The fiduciary carelessness
of the super-rich in causing the present financial
breakdown through exploitation of socially risky,
yet individually profitable, investments is a key case
in point.) John Chrysostom, well recognized for his
charitable work, demonstrates this fact through an
ingenious comparison that shows the need of coop-
eration and mutual help between the rich and the
poor in sustaining a society, and the harm that sep-
aration and individualization can cause over time.
In brief, his exercise of imagination is as fol-
lows. Suppose, he says, that we have two cities,
one populated by rich people and the other by
people of a more modest social condition. As we
might say today (in a common language of contem-
porary society) one city is composed of employers
and the other of workers, noting that there is not
one worker in the city of employers, nor one em-
ployer in the city of workers. In other words, the
rich city has no mason nor carpenter, no shoemaker
nor baker, no tiller nor blacksmith—none of them.
So, what will allow the rich to be rich in life, or
even to survive at all? After all, none of them is
willing or able to do such “menial” jobs. If they do
not want to work, how will they build houses, and
302 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 49, Number 4 • Winter 2010 • December
how will they live without the other? One option
would be to call the workers of the other city to
come and work for pay. If the rich make such a
decision, however, they will have to receive “lesser”
beings into their own city, thereby incorporating
them into their own communities. If they do not
do this, their city will die.
What does this situation look like from the van-
tage point of the city of the poor workers? Could
they exist without the presence of the rich people?
To demonstrate this situation, we must first define
wealth. To Chrysostom, wealth meant gold, silver,
precious stones, silk, or purple clothes, etc. None
of these goods is needful to survive. If the poor
want to build their houses, they do not need gold
or silver or pearls, but merely wood and stone,
along with their skills at carpentry, masonry, etc.
If they need to weave cloth for clothing, they do
not need gold and silver, but simply skillful fin-
gers. Farming also favors the workers over the rich,
as do other practically useful communal functions.
Therefore, Chrysostom concluded that the city of
workers would be able to materially sustain itself,
while the rich one could not.5
Even so, Chrysostom emphasized the need for
mutual sharing of gifts that people (both rich and
poor) have received, as proof of gratitude toward
God.6 When gifts are made and offered with joy
and freedom between the two cities, they then sanc-
tify and enrich the life of each because they are
committed to God’s will and God is present in
them. But if they are distorted and marred by sec-
ularism, then their real meaning is converted into
idolatry.
There exists a similar interdependence between
the supreme kindness of God, who governs the
world, and the solidarity that we, God’s peo-
ple, are called to show one another. Chrysos-
tom says that God has given people material
goods from God’s most great kindness, and con-
sequently, we people can imitate God by showing
our love for our brothers and sisters (1 Cor 11:1;
Eph 5:1-2).7
In fact, at the foundation of Christian love is the
natural love that is a tendency of communion of
the soul toward another person who is valuable in
and of herself. In this sense, to love someone means
to love her for the intrinsic value that she repre-
sents, and to enter into communion with her.8
Freedom from the Goods
of this World
Consider the dilemma faced by the young high
official in Luke’s Gospel: to inherit life forever, Jesus
said to him that he must sell his entire fortune and
share it with the poor (Lk 18:22). This fact made
him sad, for he could not conceive of taking such
a risk, even for something of great value. Here is
the radicalism of Christian teaching on wealth and
poverty encapsulated!
But wealth is not in itself a sin, particularly
when it is acquired by honest means, even if it is
inherited from parents, because it is simply matter,
and matter is morally neutral. There is no sin in
having money, but only in using it badly. In that
way, it is just like wine. There is no sin in drinking
wine, but only in the misuse of it. If it is decently
consumed it may even be healthy, but if it is drunk
too often and without measure it may turn into
a drug and turn the person consuming it into a
vicious person. In that case, it is not the person
who possesses the wine, but wine that possesses
him.
The same goes with money. It is attractive, it
is tempting, and it offers multiple temptations to
sin. It is like an alcoholic beverage, for its misuse
can create addiction. Wealth then becomes a vice,
abolishing and destroying human freedom. When
a person cannot distinguish between good and evil,
she begins to become blind. Therefore, Jesus asked
the official to give up his property and urged him
to share it with the poor, to see if he was able
to escape from the vice of monetary addition and
to thus regain his inner freedom, the only freedom
that really counts. Wealth enslaves us, because it
occupies our minds with worries of its loss; and
by such limiting thoughts make us its servants.9
This state of being totally contradicts the freedom
Christianity offers. The official’s attitude revealed
in the parable is typical for today’s mentality of
 Poverty and Wealth in the Orthodox Spirituality • Nicu Dumitraşcu
consumption. Inside Christians there is a struggle
between being and having, between what we want
to become and what we are, and we often lack
the inner strength of faith to risk all. Thus we re-
main a mere product of consumer society. To be
is full Christian living itself, revealing the image of
God in us and drawing us to become ever more
God’s likeness. Simply to have is inert existence,
for in holding the mirror image of our manipu-
lated, fallen selves before us, it thus draws us away
from being like God. Being means embracing true
freedom and interdependence, while having means
subordination and alienation. Being means finding
one’s true self, while having confuses our under-
standing of self with the false self presented to us
in advertising. Being means certainty and optimism,
while having is ambiguity and despair. Being means
love and sincerity, while having is selfishness and
duplicity. We live in a world of having, a world of
material goods whose mechanistic principles limit
and restrain spiritual aspirations, the only way true
fulfillment is possible.10 The Orthodox Church al-
ways has struggled to find a balance between being
and having, believing that being must include and
complete having.
The orthodox vision teaches that wealth and
luxury often cultivate pride and arrogance, while
voluntary poverty often produces humility and pa-
tience. Yet, it is important to note that imposed
poverty is not a virtue; it becomes one only if it
is freely chosen. Voluntary renunciation of worldly
goods increases human freedom and brings a spiri-
tual wealth to those who choose it. When poverty
is involuntary, however, its cares and burdens can
impede one’s spiritual vision, through no fault of
those who are exploited and marginalized by the
rich.
Transient, material, earthly wealth is not an end
in itself, but only a means to seek and cultivate
the eternal richness of the heavenly spirit, which
is obtained by love for God and people through
charity and other good deeds.
While everyone agrees that human dignity re-
quires a stable foundation of basic material goods
and security, above this level, increased material
wealth often is directly proportional to increased
alienation. Human flourishing requires community
303
sharing of happiness and suffering; we cannot save
ourselves alone.11
At its foundation, Christian social doctrine is
neither Marxist collectivism nor capitalist individ-
ualism, but free-will communion among members
of the Body of Christ.12 The human being was not
created to chase huge earnings and immediate plea-
sures, but for the likeness of God. The Holy Fa-
thers found an antidote to this fragmentation of so-
ciety based on economics and social status, namely:
to live one (for) another. This is true wisdom. Thus,
Chrysostom tried to convince the rich to become
better stewards of creation and ever-more merci-
ful, sometimes gently, but also sometimes with the
hardness of one who had suffered from their short-
comings. Therefore, when he speaks to the rich, he
aims to achieve two goals—on one hand, exhorting
them to help the poor and marginalized (because
it is not their fault that they were born so or never
had the skills to enhance their small inheritance);
and, on the other hand, seeking the purification
of their fortunes, gained by their rising above their
selfishness and by practicing the virtues (especially
charity). He identifies those rich who do not help
the poor as their oppressors, in that, according to
Christian teaching, we are only administrators of
the assets made available to us and not their mas-
ter, for the only legitimate master of wealth is God,
its Creator.13
However, let me say again that Christianity is
not against private property if it is used to satisfy
the actual needs of believers and the poor. While
no property itself is sinful, dependence on wealth
is, as the rich use wealth egotistically for themselves,
thus degrading extant relationships between people
in the community.14 The only cure for this idolatry
is the cultivation of love. Love “spreads the wealth,”
because one who loves a sister or brother will not
take the wealth unilaterally, but will share it to
cover the other’s needs.
Equal in Christ
The central theme of the Eastern patristic tradition’s
moral teaching is social justice.15 The obsessive
304 Dialog: A Journal of Theology • Volume 49, Number 4 • Winter 2010 • December
accumulation of wealth is considered crazy, because
we are all equal before God and we should bene-
fit equally from God’s gifts. God is the one who
shares the material goods of this world. God is the
creator of all and the only one who has absolute
ownership over them. Material goods are thus given
to humans only to be managed by them, to benefit
all people, regardless of faith or race.
The rich person’s fault is that she considers
wealth as something strictly personal, her own; she
does not understand that it really does not belong
to her. Each person is called to use only as much as
is necessary for her, and to share what is in abun-
dance with others. Wealth belongs to God; here on
earth its owner is really just a caretaker. This ethi-
cal stance does not attack or challenge the right to
private property, but restores it to its proper place.
Specifically, patristic spirituality does not invalidate
the principle of individual ownership but corrects
it—meaning that, while owners are owners in rela-
tion to the poor, they are only managers of wealth
in relation to God.
People need each other because they cannot
reach perfection unless they are together. In his
Treatise On the Priesthood, Chrysostom says that he
does not believe that someone can save himself if
he does not do anything for the salvation of his
neighbor.16 Nothing can make us more like Christ
than caring for our neighbor, for between Christ
and our sister who suffers is a mysterious and indis-
soluble link. To neglect one of our fellow brothers
or sisters who is in need means neglecting Christ
himself. If at the divine perfection the essential ele-
ment is love, the same is true at the human perfec-
tion, because perfection does not require isolation,
but communion. Chrysostom envisions a commu-
nity where there are no longer rich and poor, but
all people made equal in one big family, where
there is no longer “mine” and “yours,” but only
“ours.”17
Endnotes
1. Said plainly, if in the Old Testament, wealth was considered a
divine blessing, in the New Testament Jesus implores us not to col-
lect treasures on earth but in heaven. At the judgment day we will not
be asked about the wealth that we have managed to accumulate over
our earthly life span, but rather if we took care of the poor, hungry,
thirsty, sick, and oppressed. See Dumitru Popescu, Hristos, Biserică, Soci-
etate (Christ, Church, Society) (Bucharest: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al
Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House, 1998), 81.
2. Ioan I. Icā, Jr. and Germano Marani, ed., Gândirea Socială a
Bisericii (Social Thinking of the Church) (Sibiu: Deisis Publishing House,
2002), 216-217.
3. In a society that has grown away from Christian values, the ecclesi-
astical culture built on the gospel commandment of love of neighbor and
of the intercommunion is replaced by that of scientific and technological
progress, in which humankind becomes a simple instrument for produc-
ing economic outputs, becoming thereby an anonymous cog in the gear
of a consuming survival system. See Ion Bria, “Mission and Secularization
in Europe,” International Review of Mission 77 (1988): 117-130.
4. Constantin Voicu, “Teologia muncii la Sfântul Ioan Gură de Aur
şi actualitatea ei (The Theology of Saint John the Golden Mouth and its
Topicalness),” Mitropolia Ardealului, 3-5 (1975): 275.
5. St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on First Corinthians” in Nicene
and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 12, ed. Philip Schaff (1886; reprint, Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 205-206.
6. Voicu, 282-283.
7. Ibid., 286-287.
8. Orthodoxy has a high sensitivity for the communal aspect of hu-
man life and for righteous relations between people; it does not propose
social or political systems models, but rather argues that there must be
a real correlation between identity, integrity, and individual uniqueness,
and between the diversity, flexibility, and social principles of adaptability,
which govern human existence, regardless of historical time and social
order. This is because social order is made for human use, not vice versa.
See Ion Bria, “Rolul şi responsabilitatea ortodoxiei ı̂n dialogul ecumenic
(The Role and the Responsibility in the Ecumenical Dialogue)” in Orto-
doxia 2 (1980): 372.
9. Voicu, 301-302.
10. The example of the Austrian business man, Karl Rabeder,
who renounced his fortune of three million pounds, shows that even
in a consuming world, it is possible that to be can win the fight to
the detriment of to have. Aged 47 years, Rabeder sold his luxury villa
(with its lake, sauna, and a spectacular view to the Alps, valued at
roughly 1.4 million pounds); his decorating and interior accessories
company—from pots to artificial flowers—which gave him the fortune;
furthermore, he donated his car and put up for sale his old and
beautiful farm in Provence, with a meadow of 17 hectares, at a cost
of 613,000 pounds. Money made from these sales has been marked
to go to charitable organizations established by him in Central and
Latin America. Rabeder says his gesture has only one explanation:
his wealth made him miserable. Or with his words: “Money are [sic]
counterproductive—they prevent you to reach happiness . . . [for a]
long time I thought that wealth and luxury automatically mean more
happiness . . . More often I heard the words: End what you do—all the
luxury and consumerism—and start your real life . . . My impression was
that I work[ed] as a slave for things that I did not want and I did
not need.” In one of his dream holidays Rabeder had the impression
that he did not meet even a real person; everybody around were mere
actors, including both the hotel staff and their guests. Now, after having
sold his possessions, says he feels really free and happy. See Henry
Samuel, “Millionaire gives away fortune that made him miserable,”
The Daily Telegraph (Feb. 8, 2010). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/worldnews/europe/austria/7190750/Millionaire-gives-away-fortune-
that-made-him-miserable.html/ (accessed September 14, 2010).
11. St. John Chrysostom emphasizes, subtly but caustically, the mor-
bid psychology of the rich, characterized by a ravenous greed. While
 Poverty and Wealth in the Orthodox Spirituality • Nicu Dumitraşcu
others enjoy God’s bounty whole-heartedly, the greedy one is “consumed”
by himself and thus tortured, even while amidst plenty. Wealth no longer
brings him joy, but pricks his soul, leading him to considering himself
to be the most oppressed, thereby blinding him to helping the actually
impoverished ones in his sight. See Ioan G. Coman, “Creştinismul şi
bunurile materiale după Sfinţii Părinţi (Christianity and material goods
after Holy Fathers),” Studii Teologice 3-4 (1949): 160.
12. The two above-mentioned rationalist systems represent the out-
come of a mentality based only on human law (especially its sinful
version), without relating to God’s law, the law of love. The orthodox
answer to the two ideologies of “vulgar” Marxism and capitalism cen-
ters upon the personal character of the Holy Trinity as a communion
of love. The personal nature of the human being is opposed to the collec-
tivist ideology, which sinks the individual into the amorphousness of an
anonymous mass. In (rightly) opposing capitalist, individualist ideology, it
leaves the impression of a perpetual equality; and thus misses the real
communion of persons, the open-heartedness between one person and an-
other through mutual love. See Nicu Dumitraşcu, “Romanian Orthodox
Theology: Between Tradition and New Challenges in Europe,” in Ortho-
305
dox Tradition and the Twenty-first Century: Experiences of the Past, Realities
of Today, Challenges of Tomorrow, ed. Grant S. White and Teuvo Laitila
(Joensuu, Finland: University of Joensuu Publications in Theology, 2007),
62.
13. Voicu, 282-283.
14. Popescu, 81.
15. Social justice was a goal St. John Chrysostom fought for, culti-
vating love. Throughout his life, he continually investigated all the ways
through which this feeling can be turned into charity, according to the
belief that mere good deeds that are done without love are not valid. His
conception about love is characterized both by the charity which enables
the Christian to identify with fellow suffering and by the permanent
struggle to establish a social justice between people. See Teodor Damian,
“Virtutea dragostei la Sfântul Ioan Gură de Aur (The Virtue of Love at
St. John the Golden Mouth),” Biserica Ortodoxă Română 5-6 (1979): 685.
16. Ibid., 681.
17. Ibid., 681-682.