Loading ...Billy Graham’s Prayer For Our Nation?
flockwoodA prayer purportedly written by evangelist Billy Graham is being spread via the Internet. Give it a read. Does it sound like real deal of a fake?
Billy Graham’s Prayer For Our Nation
THIS GUY SURE HAS A GOOD VIEW OF WHAT’S HAPPENING TO THIS COUNTRY!
‘Heavenly Father, we come before you today to ask your forgiveness and to
seek your direction and guidance. We know Your Word says, ‘Woe to those who
call evil good,’ but that is exactly what we have done. We have lost our
spiritual equilibrium and reversed our values. We have exploited the poor and
called it the lottery. We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare. We
have killed our unborn and called it choice. We have shot abortionists and
called it justifiable. We have neglected to discipline our children and called
it building self esteem. We have abused power and called it p olitics.
We have coveted our neighbor’s possessions
and called it ambition. We have polluted the air with profanity and
pornography and called it freedom of expression. We have ridiculed the
time-honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment. Search us,
Oh God, and know our hearts today; cleanse us from every sin and Set us free.
Amen!’
Commentator Paul Harvey aired this prayer on his radio program, ‘The Rest of
the Story,’ and received a larger response to this program than any other he
has ever aired. With the Lord’s help, may this prayer sweep over our nation and
wholeheartedly become our desire so that we again can be called ‘One nation
under God.’
If possible, please pass this prayer on to your friends. ‘If you don’t stand
for something, you will fall for everything.’
Think about this: If you forward this prayer to everyone on your e-mail list,
in less than 30 days it would be heard by the world. (It ‘s worth a try!) One
Nation Under God.
**************************************************
Is this a genuine Billy Graham prayer? Nope. But it is a newsworthy prayer. It was delivered in front of the Kansas legislature by a conservative preacher named Joe Wright. Controversy followed. Click here for the rest of the story.
November 7th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Thanks for clearing that up.
November 7th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I recognized Pastor Wright’s prayer and remembered the controversy when it was delivered. Personally, I think he hit it right on the nose. I think the words of Isaiah are very pertinent for our time.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Funny, these right wing prayers never say anything like, “we’ve re-created slavery and called it the minimum wage,” or “we’ve read the scripture that says love our neighbor as ourselves, and added the line, so long as the neighbor is not from Mexico.” This “prayer” is the worst form of right wing malarkey: It blames poor people on welfare for their own problems and refers to them as lazy, while advocating censorship and a return to pre-Roe v. Wade, with all its problems. Not a word about corporate greed, of course, or about our war machine. And these people call themselves Christians. The part about the lottery was correct, though.
November 9th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Caleb, he also came out against shooting abortion providers. (Even if you just wing ‘em.)
November 10th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
True, Jose, but I figured he was just pandering to the West Wing fans there.
November 10th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Yeah, it’s just terrible to help people learn how to work and provide for themselves become as self reliant as they can possibly be rather than depend on the dole that FDR helped create in this country…just pitiful.
I can’t believe we would disagree on this, guys!
November 11th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I can’t, either, David. If FDR hadn’t created some small limited welfare programs in his day, the Communists might well have won the election of 1936, and if Huey Long hadn’t been assassinated in 1935, he might well have won it, which for a traditional greedy capitalist would have been about as bad. The only thing that saved the capitalist system in this country was FDR’s few baby steps toward a system that didn’t leave two thirds of the population out. Otherwise, I’d have to call you Comrade David. Which might not have been all bad, come to think of it. But because FDR kept the bottom third of the nation, economically, from starving to death, we are now able to argue about how big and bad a Communist he was, without an intervening revolution.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Considerations that we haven’t discussed are the vets that come back from war that have post traumatic stress. Its my understanding that there are several hundred thousands vets that already have this. During the exodus of Vietnam when the soldiers came home there were many of them that just couldn’t function in society, the govenment helped the ones that were capable of getting help, the others well, one of them could be that guy standing outside the store you visit in town, he looks like he hasn’t bathed in a month or shaved or had a haircut in a year or 2, these guys need help too. What classification are they going to be put under.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
One of the things I do is hang out with homeless people at my local McDonald’s. It’s not a mission or a a do-gooder thing; I just think homeless people tell better stories than directors of banks. But many of these folks are veterans and many obviously suffer from various kinds of mental illnesses. Most of them have been so traumatized by their VA experiences that they would never go back. I have tried to help some of them get health care, and it’s an uphill battle all the way. I agree, Perplexed, that on this Veteran’s Day, we should think a moment about these veterans who fought for us. Now we need to fight for them.
November 18th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Praise God for Billy Graham. He has won so many to Christ and has been a perfect example of what a Christian should desire to be in this life.
Lets join in and pray for this nation.God told us what we need to know to fix our Country. we as Christians who believe the word of God should be doing what His word says, and I believe when we do God will heal our land.
2Ch 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
Jesus himself fought the enemy with three very important words (IT IS WRITTEN )
Luk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Pray For America.
November 25th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
My prayer is with Billy Graham and for our deteriating nation. Instead of individuals looking for what divides us we should be looking for what unites us…
November 25th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
James we should go back to basic to be united, under one and only true God and trust on Him, as founding fathers wisely written on currency, encountering confidently any challenges that drag the nation backward and divided. Problem is many do not realize true God, they believe there is nothing “good” or “bad”, only thinking makes it so and thus they hit the bush (His creations, such as natural birth; love of God, love between husband-wife, among friends, relatives, and neighbors; diligent works, honesty, etc.) blindly to make their own way to survive on this planet.
November 25th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Julian, just to gig you as much about American history as I do about biblical history, the phrase “In God We Trust” didn’t appear on US currency until 1957, when most of the founding fathers had already gone to see their maker. The phrase’s first appearance on coins didn’t occur until the Civil War of the 1860s, when there was an outcry primarily from ministers to have it included on coins.
The previous motto on coins, the one actually selected by our founding fathers, was E Pluribus Unum (Latin for “One from many” or “One from many parts.”). My point is that religious sentiment has waxed and waned during our history, and most of what we think of as “traditional” representations of religion in public life originated during the religious revival of the 1950s, not with our founding fathers.
November 26th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Caleb, thanks for history on our national motto, “In God We Trust”. History speaks that time and again some influential political figures tried without success to ignore people’s sentiment on recognition of God to protect America. First appearing of motto on two-cent coin in 1864 and finally codified “In God We Trust” as federal laws in 1956 by congress is an example of victory of people’s power with God’s help. Let us give thanks to God in “Thanks giving day” for bountiful food in early days when science was not in help.
We would acknowledge that morale value of America has been diminished in all respect since sex revolution started during sixties: current financial collapsed, school shooting, child abuse, teen pregnancy, divorce rate, same sex, AID disease etc. etc. are example of few. Only one way country could be back on track on the subject prayer is thru trusting on God. But interestingly what Soviet Union discarded (non-existence of God) after cold war, modern Europe picked up the same path for failure. Only time would judge, if we do not learn from history.
November 27th, 2009 at 11:31 am
I don’t think the Soviet Union’s rejection of God had much to do with its decline and fall; I suspect bad economic policy is to blame for that. There are many countries in the developing world whose population probably believes in God more strongly than we do in America, but which are still failing economically. So, belief in God is hardly a panacea.
In fact, I suspect that if you looked at the countries where religious belief is the strongest, such as Latin America and many parts of Africa, you see that they are far poorer than many nations which have little belief in God, such as the nations of Western Europe, and even the old Soviet Union.
November 28th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Caleb, godlessness/heartlessness is much to do on one’s miseries and then next to nation building. Character builds an individual and an individual builds a nation. Only godly people can build a character, which builds a healthy nation in all respect.
America’s forefathers worked hard relying on God and results we found as of today. Only prudent distribution of wealth to all people, could build a rich nation, as we are all economic man and interdependent. On the contrary greedy, dishonesty, characterless makes an individual rich by exploiting others. People like Bernie Madoff are the typical example for crush of present economic crises world wide.
Where was AIDS hiding before eighties, when it first appear in America? Only unethical uses of sex mostly by rich people like Rock Hudson (they rely less on God) brought the killer disease for mankind. If “prevention is the best medicine”, then like malaria eradicate homosexuality and prostitution, AIDS would be extinguish from the face of the earth. Make all people honest, no shop lifting, fraud business, etc. as it was before, then free flow of wealth as well as wisdom would prevail evenly to build a happy and healthy nation. But to do this, people need to be in godly nature and that need to be united under God, which James prayed in his comment above.
Caleb, God’s grace is priceless, like love of mother/father towards their children. As mother/father helps their children, who respect them and do their homework, God helps those who help themselves. As faith without works is baseless as you stated earlier, same way developing Christian countries are responsible for their own failure not the God. Proper management of resources are key issues for success and God helps us with wisdom when we help ourselves. He is always kind and slow to anger.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Julian, I must say that you constantly amaze me. Long before rich people like Rock Hudson invented AIDS, according to you, there were plenty of venereal diseases, and they killed lots of people, most of whom got them from heterosexual relations.
I’m simply unwilling to buy what seems to be your argument that the more “religious” a nation is, the better it is guaranteed to be. There was no more religious nation in the world than Tsarist Russia, and yet it was recognized in its day as one of the most evil. Certainly the Boers of South Africa, with their Dutch Reformed church, were far more religious than the liberal Anglican English speaking people of South Africa, and the Boers were the ones who initiated Apartheid.
Certainly no more religious nation ever existed than the Confederate States of America, a “nation,” if that’s what it was, formed so that it could perpetuate slavery.
And, on the other side of the coin, there are fewer more secular places in the world than Western Europe, and yet its nations are far more advanced in their treatment of poor people than we are. Go figure.
November 30th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
But, Caleb, you forget that those people were not worshiping the one true God that Julian worships, so those examples don’t count. They were worshipping idols. A nation that worshipped Julian’s God would be perfect.
November 30th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Caleb, thanks for raising flag for your surprise, but again, you misunderstood my message by above comment. I am not comparing homosexual vs. heterosexual. My point is that godlessness heart in general brings miseries to society as the subject prayer said. We would agree that all sex-born-diseases like killer venereal diseases and HIV virus that caused AIDS come out of unethical sexual behavior, either by heterosexual or homosexual. It is stated by CDC in Aug 21, 2009 that every 9.5 minutes, someone in the U.S. is infected with HIV. AIDS originated in monkey or apes in sub-Saharan Africa, was transferred to human by immoral sex. News media got attention of the disease when rich and famous Rock Hudson died by the disease in eighties.
About relationship between rich in wealth and rich in spirituality we can hypothesized that rich in wealth inversely proportional to rich in spirituality or in other words spiritual richness directly proportional to health and happiness in all respect. Time and again it is proven that God of Abraham, Jacob and father of Jesus Christ is ultimate provider of happy, healthy and strong nation. Jesus and evil do not go together, as your story about Tsarist Russia’s evil works, apartheid in South Africa, slavery in Confederate States of America, etc. Jesus count faith by action not by mere words, like “I love you”, as you know it very well.
December 1st, 2009 at 11:27 am
Cheese, I can understand that complaint when applied to the Tsarist Russian Orthodox Church, which no doubt serious Protestants would see as full of idols. But those Confederates were good Baptists and Methodists, and dare I say it, Episcopalians just like us.
Julian is right to point out that true religion is not just whether you go to church or profess to believe in a certain faith. True religion is how you really treat people, particularly people over whom you have control. That’s why the Confederates and South Africans and Russians fail the test: While they claimed to be oh so religious, they treated their slaves and black citizens and serfs deplorably.
I fear that our society suffers from the same problem: We are a rich society, but we use that wealth for all the wrong things, rather than to help poor people better themselves. I wonder every day how many college scholarships we could provide every year with what we spend on our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in one day. Whenever I see one of these new warships christened, I wonder how many medical schools we could have built for the cost of that ship. Every time I see a military plane fly over, I wonder how many school textbooks you could have bought with that money. But the people in power don’t seem to be asking these questions.
December 1st, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Just a correction here. Tsarist Russia was NOT considered that religious. As Orlando Figes explains in his exhaustingly definitive history of the Russian Revolution, A People’s Tragedy, the majority of the citizenry were Orthodox in name only. Whenever there was unrest (which happened a lot) the priests and the churches were often among the first to feel the wrath. The majority of the populace, primarily in the rural districts, were still animistic in their religious beliefs and only nominally Christian. Not that older or original beliefs are necessarily worse or evil compared to Christianity, but they are typically less developed and applicable to progressive times. Less malleable, I suppose.
The beauty of the Christian, Jewish, Islamic, and in some ways Buddhist and Hindu religions is their wealth of scripture and complex tradition that gives their adherents more “raw material” to work with to adjust to changing circumstances. Religion, however, like money, is just a tool. It can be used for enlightenment or for oppression. For centuries in Europe, religion was used as a tool to justify war and slaughter. But these people were cutting each other’s throats long before Christianity was ever preached on their shores.
Keep that it mind, Caleb, when you start getting bent on how utopian Western Europe is today. The 20th century was the bloodiest in all of human history primarily because of those exact same European countries—and religion did not play a primary role in any of those conflicts. These same countries are setting themselves up for further conflict and possible tragedy by the use of modern “serfdom” in cultivating a culture of dependancy among their relatively less affluent classes. I say “relatively” because they are still almost infinitely more comfortable then their recent predecessors. I whole-heartedly agree with you that belief in God solely has no bearing on how “righteous” or successful a nation is. “Show me your belief not by your words, but by your actions,” as the saying goes.
What bothers me about this prayer by Joe Wright—not that I disagree with the content—is that he was really just preaching to the audience rather than addressing a message to God. It always strikes me as a bit brash, and somewhat offensive, to preach a sermon in the context of addressing the supposed most all-powerful Being in the universe. Makes you wonder about the preacher’s own relationship, if there is one, with that Being. Seems a little uppity of him. But that’s just my meritoriously humble opinion.
December 1st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Well, I suppose that serfdom is in the eye of the beholder. The question boils down to whether it is better to have an economic system that, say, allows the top one half percent to become multi-billionaires, at the cost of requiring the bottom 25% of the population to live, as Americans in that group do, on an income that would be considered good in most of the world, but that doesn’t quite cut it here, or in the alternative, an economy that might only allow the top quarter of a percent of the population to become multi-billionaires (the next half percent down becoming only multi-millionaires), with the result that the entire population is afforded a degree of comfort.
I realize that to conservatives, the first option will always be better. I don’t understand that, given that few of us, under any system, will become truly rich. To liberals like me, the second option, the one currently in place in Western Europe, will always be preferable.
Conservatives often slam Western Europe for not being entrepreneurial enough and not oriented sufficiently to the growth of business. And yet, whenever people in the US get enough money, they usually buy all the European goods they can. They gotta have that Mercedes, made in evil socialist Germany, or if they’re younger, a Porsche from the same place, or if they have more money than they know what to do with, a Rolls Royce from socialist England. If they’re only moderately successful, they might settle for a Saab or Volvo made in socialist Sweden. If they’ve really made it, they might get a Maserati or a Ferrari from evil socialist Italy. The one thing that is painfully clear is that NO ONE around the world, outside of North America, is buying America’s cars.
So, the idea that business can’t succeed where workers also succeed is simply not true. The question is why we’re allowing an economy to operate where apparently neither the business owners nor the workers are making it. You suggest that Western Europe was recently the scene of terrible warfare and suffering. That’s true, but the nations have gotten over it during the past fifty years or so and have bypassed us in most areas of livability. The question is what kind of calamity it will take to make us do the same thing.
December 1st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
I don’t think you’ll ever quite get it, Caleb. I and other conservatives do not wish poverty or less comfort on anybody. My hope is that ALL can have an equal opportunity to be well-off, and yes even filthy rich if that is their motivation, and the right to keep what they have worked for as well. Caleb, my friend, I would be the most liberal person around, maybe even more liberal than you, if it were not for one, only one, small problem. I don’t believe in FORCE. All the fancy, eloquent socialist or liberal rhetoric is great, even beautiful, except for that one little itty bitty force issue that blows it all to hell. And that is what it produces in one way or another for somebody—hell. Whereas, when no one is being forced, everyone is truly free—even the ones who would be doing the forcing. We can’t always avoid the use of force in every circumstance in this fallen world, unfortunately, but we sure as hell better limit its use as much as possible.
The United States has been the envy of all people who value freedom, no matter where they are from, precisely because we so strongly believe in self-reliance and personal responsibility. Freedom to succeed also implies the freedom to fail. You may find some more extreme examples on the fringes of a more free society, but there is no way I am going to destroy or exchange our society for some European model that so many have fled from. Totalitarian regimes—fascism, communism, and even imperialism—were only able to flourish in societies like Germany, Russia and England because they already had a culture of socialism where the government was looked to as the answer, and force was simply a way of life to a greater or lesser extent.
Yes we will have some stinking filthy rich bastards in our midst in a truly free society, and some people who will not be able to get ahead because of their limitations. But here is the real beauty of freedom: As long as you don’t mess with natural consequences too much, over time (sometimes generations) society will always move upward and all benefit. It’s kind of an evolution thing, except the weak are eventually made stronger—maybe not always relatively stronger in relation to the strongest, but stronger nonetheless. Even other, less free societies benefit. France, Germany and literally all the other countries in the world would not be at their level of comfort today, had it not been for the characteristics of freedom that led to the American Revolution. America certainly did not have a monopoly on these characteristics, England and the Dutch were also quite progressive in these matters, but we are certainly one of the best examples and led the way to democracy and true freedom, precisely because we did not believe in FORCE.
You remember when CD players came out? In 1981 a new CD player cost more than $2,000! Who could afford to buy such a thing? The rich! The more rich people you have the faster comforts and wealth lifts ALL of society. The only reason CD players are only $10 now is because the rich were there, ahead in the line, to pay for the R&D and to create the demand. The more people we have financing excellence, the more luxury we will all eventually have. And a beautiful side effect is that if you’re dirt poor but really want, say, a plasma TV or a Harley, it is within your reach. You may have to make sacrifices, but you are free to get it. Not so in, say, pre-Margaret Thatcher England. My parents went to England back in 1990 or so and were impressed by all the newer model cars there. Then they realized there were virtually no older ones. They figured it out; England was not using up there older cars faster than the U.S., they DIDN’T HAVE THEM in the first place. If you are poor, you have a much harder time getting even one or two things you like in these countries. A microwave oven costs nearly three times more in Australia than the U.S., and this is where the average worker, when adjusted for purchasing power, makes roughly the equivalent to one in America. To the greater degree they force their neighbor to comfort them, to that same degree they limit their growth and abilities.
Don’t like it here? Move to France. But try not to get upset when 3-D halo-imaging home theaters, or the latest and greatest treatments for cancer, or whatever, are easier to get in America a few years from now and you, assuming you are middle or lower class, have to wait much longer for them to be within your reach.
December 2nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
John,
Every government uses force, even the great United States. Once something becomes law, it is forced upon the rest of us. If we violate it, the government arrests us and throws us in jail. Force is and will always be a constant, regardless of your political philosophy.
December 2nd, 2009 at 1:53 pm
John, you say: “Caleb, my friend, I would be the most liberal person around, maybe even more liberal than you, if it were not for one, only one, small problem. I don’t believe in FORCE.”
Well, I don’t much like force, either. That’s why I like living in a democracy, where we at least get to vote on what the government uses its force to do. I think it’s great that conservatives, who are always the first to use force in any situation against poor people, don’t like it being used against them. That’s a great re-definition of “force” to include all government action. I just wish the conservative movement were as good at providing solutions as it is at demonizing everything.
I guess I don’t understand why it’s okay to use the government’s force to make me use part of my money to put up an EXIT sign in a building, or to put a safety device on a machine used in my business, both of which protect the public, but not okay to make me use part of my money to help society in other ways. It almost seems that you’re elevating money to some sort of semi-God-like state. That’s the part I don’t agree with. I think if our government can tell you to drive on the right side of the road, and to buy auto insurance while you’re doing it, it can also tell you to buy health insurance and pay your employees a decent wage.
BTW, that was a nice defense of the rich, the whole CD player thing. You could make an even better argument that all the auto safety devices come out first in expensive cars; rich people VOLUNTARILY have become the lab rats on which these systems are tested, and if they work, they eventually are also installed on lower priced models. Fundamentally, I suppose it’s a question of whom you like. I have nothing against rich people personally; some of my best friends are rich. And they generally smell better than poor people, though their conversation is usually not terribly interesting. But as a group, I think they do more harm than good, and particularly the conservative rich. If it weren’t for them, we’d have had a workers’ paradise here years ago.
December 2nd, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Cheese, you may have seen my explanation about proactive vs. reactive rights in an earlier post somewhere here. That explains my reasoning on the proper use of force. Essentially it boils down to force only being used in order to force others not to force me. Get it?
You crack me up, Caleb. Hail the “worker’s paradise,” comrade! “Paradise” to me is lounging on a beach in Tahiti with a couple naked women and and ice-cold Mai Tai in the hand. “Work” has nothing to do with it!!! But it is very interesting you brought up auto insurance. That is my seminal example for the “gray area” questions about health care, schools, and many other potentially socialist-like entities. You see, each state requires citizens to have liability insurance on their cars in order to avail themselves of the privilege of driving on the public roads, and rightfully so. But here is the beauty: Like the cars themselves, THEY DON’T PROVIDE THAT SERVICE!. They only require it. We are therefore able to CHOOSE from many, many different private services all competing to be the best, cheapest, and most innovative provider of auto insurance. No, it is not always the most efficient way of doing things, and it requires some effort on our parts (let’s see, should I go with Allstate, Progressive, State Farm, Geico, or my cousin Eddie? Hmm…), but it is THE ONLY WAY customers’ needs can be effectively discovered, innovation rewarded, and “service with a smile” virtually guaranteed.
I have cold-sweat nightmares about having to go to the DMV for my auto insurance. Talk about “service with a snarl!” And God-forbid I should have an accident: “Um, sir. That will be an 18-month wait for your loaner vehicle, but that’s okay ’cause your car won’t be out of the “worker’s paradise” shop for at least 2 years. Hey, you’ll get to use the Yugo for ‘free’ for at least 6 months!”
Also, Caleb, you need to get yourself some better rich friends (they all aren’t lawyers, are they?). If they actually earned their money honestly themselves, I find such people quite interesting. They are knowledgeable, smart, creative and don’t usually have the social hang-ups or disgusting habits that the rest of us poor slobs seem to have in abundance. (Tiger Woods now excepted, I suppose. Poor fellow.)
December 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree about what kind of rich people we like, too. Being an Episcopalian, I tend to think that if one MUST have money (and trust me, most Episcopalians revel in the fact that they don’t find it necessary to have much money), it should at least be old money.
My experience is that those who have made their money (and you crack me up with the “honestly” part; I don’t know of anyone who has made a lot of money who did it totally honestly) tend to think that they made their money because of their own talents and abilities, when in fact nearly everyone who makes a lot of money makes it through luck; even dishonesty is not as profitable as luck. The ones who have “made” their money tend to think that this makes them superior to everyone else, and that if everyone else would merely act as Mr. Big wants them to, they’d be both rich and happy.
In my experience, those who were lucky enough to inherit money (and trust me, that doesn’t include me), though, tend to consider themselves lucky, tend to want to use at least part of their money to help other people, and tend to have had time to get a good education, whereas most people who have had serious business careers learn a lot about making money, but not about much else, even though you’d think at some point they’d have enough money to suit them and turn their time and talents to something else.
My experience is that many people who make money tend to think they’ve done it through their own efforts, when in fact if they did use talent to do it, it was talent — as your man Rush would say — on loan from God, put together with the luck that God also provided. To me, this kind of attitude undermines the whole theory of Christianity, which is that each of us does nothing without God’s help, and the idea that some of us are superior to others because God has chosen to give us particular talents is a thoroughly un-Christian idea.
No doubt, John, you’ll regale me with tales of all the folks you’ve known who have made their own money and who are, if not saints already, on the fast track to saintdom, and I don’t doubt that there are some folks like this; I’ve known a few. But only a few, and I suspect that these are not representative of the whole.
December 4th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Well, I guess it all depends on your preconceptions. I feel we may both be over-generalizing here. My little sister is getting her PhD at Haaarvard right now. She is surrounded by eggheads and old money and says the old money arrogance bugs her no end. However, she married into new money and absolutely loves her in-laws, so I guess I can see her possible bias.
I do agree some of the new money people tend to be a bit A.D.D. and can be quite annoying, but I respect their passion and find it quite stimulating at times. (Not that I personally have had a whole lot of experience with either—just your run-of-the-mill lower middle class keyboard monkey here.)
I didn’t know Episcopalians associated economics with religion in such a way. Interesting. I agree 100 percent with your definition of Christianity and I feel we all need to do a better job of proselytizing it. However, we are shooting it right in the heart when we get the government, or any other “control” or power entity involved. It can ABSOLUTELY NOT be forced! In any way! The giver and the receiver are both worse off in the long run. Only when people have the agency to act for themselves can they grow in the actual charitable attributes Christ taught. This means, like Christ, we must be patient with those who use their agency to choose inferior paths. Forcing the rich onto the “strait and narrow” according to our OWN arrogant notions only accomplishes the exact opposite of what God would like us to be. You can see how such practices have worked wonders in Russia and Western Europe today.
Cute little story relating to this (just because I have nothing better to do at the moment): My daughter got mad at my son the other day because he wouldn’t share some of his Halloween candy with her. She had ate all of hers within a couple days and my son likes to “horde” and pace himself. They both got the same amount of candy, but my son was blessed with the talent to save. (I get the inkling I’m going to be bailing my daughter out a lot… sigh… ) I didn’t force my son to share, I just told him not to gloat and then asked him if he enjoyed seeing his sister sad. He said he did not (whew!) and decided ON HIS OWN to share a little with her.
Remember Christ’s parable of the talents? Each servant was expected to increase their talents. I don’t remember force ever being involved in any way. Maybe the reason we are as socialist as we are is because we are not worthy of any better. The churches and other organizations are a reflection of the ethics of the people, and they may not have “stepped up the the plate” as well as they should have in the past. I feel we need to put more effort into that end of the problem and get the dictatorial powers of government out of the equation, as much as possible.