Strange That Our Money Says: In God We Trust

1,530 Views | 16 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by diehard03
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Strange That Our Money Says: In God We Trust
Quote:

There are two great money problems in the Scriptures: too little and too much. The theme of the poor is a constant throughout both the Old and the New Testament. They tend to be cast as victims easy prey for the rich, often exploited, and particularly beloved of God. He is the protector of the "widow and the fatherless" and clearly favors the poor. The rich come in for scathing treatment and dire warnings. Christ's own words regarding the rich and the difficulty of their salvation almost drove the disciples to despair. And yet, most people in modern culture imagine wealth to be the solution to problems. Half of all lottery tickets in America are bought by the poorest third of the population.1

Perhaps more shameful is the fact that, today, the rich judge the poor to be foolish for such behaviors.
Quote:

Among the most striking changes in the Christian attitude towards money has been the evolution of understanding regarding charging interest: classically known as "usury." Today "usury" is used only to describe outrageous percentages on borrowed funds. Originally, however, "usury" referred to all use of interest on borrowed funds. It was a forbidden practice in Christianity in its early centuries, a violation of the teachings of Christ. This remained the case until the early Reformation when its modest practice began to be allowed.

With the standardization of the Middle Class within Christian consciousness came a standardization of Middle-Class attitudes towards wealth and property. The notion of "private property" became enshrined in Christian thought, replacing the concept of stewardship (in which everything belongs to God, and we are each accountable for our use). Individualism, as we know it today, requires the Middle-Class world as a standard: the poor simply cannot afford such independence. Individualism also requires a strong sense of private property so that each of us may pretend that we are self-sufficient. It may well indeed be the case that the greatest delusion of the modern age is that associated with our economic consciousness.
Quote:

For Clement, wealth is a "dangerous and deadly disease!" I recall hearing someone remark about this, "I wish I could catch it!"

St. Clement is not unusual in his attitude towards money. He is an exemplar of pretty much everything written on the topic in the first ten centuries or more of the faith. Like Christ, he gages his thought by what money (property, etc.) does to the soul.
Quote:

There is something about money/property that has the power to utterly corrupt the soul. A key, I think, is found in Christ's aphorism regarding "Mammon" (money): "You cannot serve God and Mammon." Wealth has a power within it that draws us into idolatry. We begin to place our faith and trust in what wealth can do while remaining distant from God. God may have "top-billing" in our intellectual universe, but runs a distant second when it comes to what we most desire.
Quote:

The pretense of the world's self-sufficiency can only be maintained by the delusions created by wealth. Agnosticism and Atheism are the religions of the rich (or the Middle Class). It is a philosophy that safeguards the inherent power of their position. I should add that secularized Christianity can be described as "Christian Atheism." [footnote] Those who would challenge this analysis by pointing to the Communist revolutions of the last century, fail to note that the ruling class within those regimes quickly adopted both the power and wealth of the class which they overthrew.
Quote:

Historically, the most significant group to maintain some semblance of sanity (outside of the poor) were the monastics of the Church, although any number of monastic establishments actually became quite rich. Institutional battles over monastic property have almost always been won by those with money (in Russia, the Possessors triumphed over the Non-Possessors, and, in the West, the Franciscans became sufficiently reconciled with wealth to pass under a dangerous Papal radar).

Virtually all the modern arguments regarding wealth (certainly among Christians), presume that we have some say in the matter, that is, that wealth belongs to us and that it is our responsibility to arrange its disposition. We place ourselves into the realm of management and move one step closer to the practical atheism of secularity. The poor are generally lacking in economic theories.
Quote:

The great tragedy, however, is the perversion of the gospel in which, as managers, we decide how best to run the world. This represents a radical shift away from both Old and New Testament. It will undoubtedly be argued that we are commanded to be good stewards and that proper management of wealth is a God-given commandment. Jesus did not offer the parables of the Kingdom in order to create a responsible Middle Class. When the stewards of the parables are transformed into the managers of this world, Christ's teaching has been tamed and made to serve the Prince of this World.
Quote:

No matter our thoughts on the subject, the general landscape of a certain portion of the world is utterly married to wealth and property. Christians who live in such societies will most likely continue to find ways to accommodate the gospel. And this, I think, is our great loss. The managers of this world will find that the Kingdom of God is not compatible with their goals.
Quote:

"He has exalted the humble and meek and the rich He has sent away empty."


diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

presume that we have some say in the matter, that is, that wealth belongs to us and that it is our responsibility to arrange its disposition. We place ourselves into the realm of management and move one step closer to the practical atheism of secularity. The poor are generally lacking in economic theories.

I didn't read through the article, but this section strikes me. There are common themes in Scripture that this is indeed the case...be it having dominion over the animals or how we should raise our children.

We are in the realm of management. it's just hard for us to divorce ownership and all that comes with it with management. We like to take the Dave Ramsey Theology approach and assume that God wants us to management money one way...when we are called to manage money different ways.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Interesting you bring up Dave Ramsey. I think he offers great advice which is very helpful in people getting out of debt. That said, I've always had issues with how it's become so ingrained in churches because of one thing. Of his 7 steps, only one explicitly calls for giving, and it's the very last one. It even comes after squirreling away 15% of your income into Roth IRAs.

  • Baby Step 1 $1,000 to start an Emergency Fund
  • Baby Step 2 Pay off all debt using the Debt Snowball
  • Baby Step 3 3 to 6 months of expenses in savings
  • Baby Step 4 Invest 15% of household income into Roth IRAs and pre-tax retirement
  • Baby Step 5 College funding for children
  • Baby Step 6 Pay off home early
  • Baby Step 7 Build wealth and give!

1) This approach would have resulted in the widow keeping those two coins for herself, and 2) as evidenced by the widow, we are to give sacrificially, not out of our surplus.

From a worldly perspective, it's great advice. I just wish it would stop being championed by the church as though these are biblical steps.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I will give him kudos. His stuff on getting both spouses on board is really really good. he does well on the psychology/buy-in side of things.

His theology stuff is "rough" ill say. Too heavy handed and too worldly focused.

It's funny how he brings it up widows mite, but doesn't....all to advertise how churches can pay him (I assume) to help their giving increase:

https://www.daveramsey.com/blog/dave-briggs-stewardship-spiritual-vitality
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
edit: love connection made
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Got it, thanks.
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PacifistAg said:

Interesting you bring up Dave Ramsey. I think he offers great advice which is very helpful in people getting out of debt. That said, I've always had issues with how it's become so ingrained in churches because of one thing. Of his 7 steps, only one explicitly calls for giving, and it's the very last one. It even comes after squirreling away 15% of your income into Roth IRAs.

  • Baby Step 1 $1,000 to start an Emergency Fund
  • Baby Step 2 Pay off all debt using the Debt Snowball
  • Baby Step 3 3 to 6 months of expenses in savings
  • Baby Step 4 Invest 15% of household income into Roth IRAs and pre-tax retirement
  • Baby Step 5 College funding for children
  • Baby Step 6 Pay off home early
  • Baby Step 7 Build wealth and give!

1) This approach would have resulted in the widow keeping those two coins for herself, and 2) as evidenced by the widow, we are to give sacrificially, not out of our surplus.

From a worldly perspective, it's great advice. I just wish it would stop being championed by the church as though these are biblical steps.

I always take Dave Ramsey's advice with respect to the audience that made him so famous- people deeply in debt who could not manage money at all. I think it would be the wrong time to tell someone who is 60k in debt, trying to pull their life together they should give 10% on top of that to a church. That is between that person and their church, and can open up a can of worms about what giving looks in the new testament. Dave Ramsey is a christian, but his target audience isn't Christian's exclusively.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

I think it would be the wrong time to tell someone who is 60k in debt, trying to pull their life together they should give 10% on top of that to a church. That is between that person and their church, and can open up a can of worms about what giving looks in the new testament.

I mean, is the widows mite in the NT or is it not?
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is there room for nuance between giving out of your poverty and giving out of your easy-credit indebtedness? Honest question.

In other words - is there a difference between her situation and those in debt? Is that "all they have to live on"? Are people ready for or capable of that level of piety if they're in a situation that appears to be fueled by materialism?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Is there room for nuance between giving out of your poverty and giving out of your easy-credit indebtedness? Honest question.

The nuance is in the question that's being answered, to me. The widows mite isn't a "everyone should give everything they have to the church" story...but it can serve as a counterexample if you say that there are limits to one's giving. (ie, "how much should/can I give" is a different question than "how much giving is too much given my situation". One puts God in his rightful place, one doesn't)

I will admit that I maybe interpreting this in a direction that MEEN is not going.
schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I prefer "e pluribus Unum."
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmendeler said:

I prefer "e pluribus Unum."
All I can think of when I read your post is Greendale Community College

schmendeler
How long do you want to ignore this user?
one MEEN Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
diehard03 said:

Quote:

Is there room for nuance between giving out of your poverty and giving out of your easy-credit indebtedness? Honest question.

The nuance is in the question that's being answered, to me. The widows mite isn't a "everyone should give everything they have to the church" story...but it can serve as a counterexample if you say that there are limits to one's giving. (ie, "how much should/can I give" is a different question than "how much giving is too much given my situation". One puts God in his rightful place, one doesn't)

I will admit that I maybe interpreting this in a direction that MEEN is not going.
I personally agree with what you're saying, but I think everyone is reading way too much into Dave Ramsey's super condensed financial roadmap. His career is instilling financial discipline in people to eliminate bad debt and grow your personal wealth. Period. His career is not to 'increase the donations to the church.' What do you want his the last point to be? 'Create wealth and then spend it on yourself?.' He never discourages people from tithing. If that is a line item in your household budget - great. He just wants you to create a budget, cut away frivolous expenditures, stick to the budget, and see your financial situation improve.


diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

His career is instilling financial discipline in people to eliminate bad debt and grow your personal wealth. Period. His career is not to 'increase the donations to the church.' What do you want his the last point to be? 'Create wealth and then spend it on yourself?.' He never discourages people from tithing. If that is a line item in your household budget - great. He just wants you to create a budget, cut away frivolous expenditures, stick to the budget, and see your financial situation improve.

He just figured out he could dress his message in "Christianese" and move a lot of product. That's all.

The whole reason it was mentioned as an example where, as K2 brought up, there is nuance. He has no nuance. You should check out his videos of what he says to people who want to give more God than he thinks. It's less than charitable, I'll say.
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You miss a lot in the widow's mite story is you don't know the context. Part of the tithe specifically went to support widows and orphans. This widow was not going to starve unless gave sent down miraculous manna from heaven after she gave away her money. She was basically on God mandated welfare.

So the lesson isn't to give everything away and trust God to provide. The lesson is that this poor widow received a small amount to live on from the Temple, and she was both frugal and generous enough to give the money back that she didn't need. A modern equivalent would be someone on welfare or just social security having money leftover every month after necessities and donating all of it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

So the lesson isn't to give everything away and trust God to provide.

That's not what were getting at here. it's that it's an example of not going the other way: dogmatically saying that giving should be on hold due to bad financial choices.

Quote:

she was both frugal and generous enough to give the money back that she didn't need.

While I agree that she was supported due to her status, Jesus's words about this aren't really backing this up. I think it was a simple illustration that the rich were giving out of the excess and she was really sacrificing for God...so her giving "matters more" in the Kingdom Economy. Sometimes I think we over analyze and try to find meaning thats not really there.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.