Why do
people go to the Temple or praise God? May be, because they have everything in
life. We praise God because we have all the wealth and enjoy all the benefits
of the human world and therefore we are concerned about the higher life. This
would mean that the rich praise God or that praising God becomes possible when
we become rich. In other words, only when our lower needs are fulfilled we will
be concerned about our higher needs. Abraham
Maslow had talked about the hierarchy of needs. If religious belief is
concerned with the higher or fuller life this means that one’s belief is to be
concerned with the higher life. It should mean that only the rich are very
particular to praise God. We hear and read that people throw gold and money in
some famous temples and Churches. The offering can be seen as the sign that
they do not value money so much compared to God and his magnanimity. They are
able to tell God – Money or gold is nothing in front of God –.
On the
contrary we also know that the poor people are more religious than the rich.
Jesus valued the small coin thrown in the offertory box. He also said that there
will be always poor with you. Although he had said this in a different context,
it seems to me that the passage can be interpreted to mean that these poor will
always be there visiting the temple and they will be always faithful. It is
obvious that the poor outnumber the rich in marching towards the temples and
Churches. When one compares a country like India with the Western countries which are quite well off one can very well understand that they do
have less believers and church attendance.[1]
It seems
then that the claim that the rich will seek God seems to be false. God is not
sought only when one is rich but there is something more to belief and not
simply the material welfare. It can be argued that the poor rush to the
Churches in order to seek the material welfare, seeking the help of God to
attain human welfare. If the poor praise God only to receive material goods,
then basic need is not God but my hunger, my clothing and house, in this sense
Maslow may seem to be right. I doubt whether this can simply be associated with
human needs of hunger. There seems to be more to this. The regular attendance,
the affinity to religion can be awakened and one’s explicit identification with
a particular religion can also have sociological or political reasons.[2]
This affinity to religion can be also seen to be inherent in the human
person. That is what some like Paul Tillich called faith as the ultimate
concern of the human person.[3] In
this sense it seems that the economic relations have nothing to do with the
religious beliefs. Poor may be more religious (concerned about the higher life
that is inclusive of the ordinary life) not because they lack wealth but in
spite of lacking wealth. The rich can also be religious in spite of the wealth
they have if they are poor in spirit otherwise the immersion in the world can
block the awareness of the ultimacy. Therefore the awareness of one’s need of
higher life has an easy access in the poor whereas it seems difficult for the
rich.
Does it mean that the poor are really and spontaneously concerned about
the ultimacy and the rich are not? Was Job religious because he was rich – or
because he was poor in spirit? Or he was rich because he was religious? Did he
praise God even when he was poor because he was already poor in spirit – or he
became poor because he prayed?
[1] I restrict myself here to Europe. I do not want to talk about the
United States now. It is true that the United States has more believers and
regular attendance of the liturgical celebrations. There are reasons for the
differences.
[2] In India the celebration of vinayaga sathurthi has become very
popular that can be seen to be associated with the political reasons rather
than religious reasons. The question here is about believers therefore the
question is raised in the religious context and not others.
[3] Paul Tillich calls the faith as the ultimate concern of the person.
No comments:
Post a Comment