Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

A "socially responsible" mutual fund started by two United Methodist
clergymen in Washington has been rated first in performance among all
balanced mutual fund institutions in the nation in 1990.

"The Wall Street Journal," "Money" magazine and "Changing Times" magazine
all put Pax World Fund at the top of their lists.  Lipper Analytical
Services, a national mutual fund rating service, said Pax World achieved
a total return of 10.45 percent for 1990.  Pax World, the first fund
of its kind, was launched by the Revs. Luther Tyson and J. Elliot Campbell
of Washington in 1970.

Richard

    When Jesus spoke about abundant living, was he speaking of material
    abundance, in whole or in part?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    RE. .2
    
    	yes

Jesus was speaking of abundance of life in terms of peace, fulfillment
and joy.

I'd be hard-pressed to say how much He was discussing material abundance
in this statement.  I don't believe it was the dominant thought.

Collis

    I, too, believe Jesus was speaking of fullness of life, which includes,
    but is not limited to, suffering and pain.
    
    Joy is not the absence of suffering.  Joy is the presence of God.
    
    Richard

	A recent study by researcher Steven Hart shows that the poorest fifth
of church members gave, on the average, 3.4 percent of their income to the
church, while the wealthiest gave 1.6 percent.

	The average amount of money given by the poorest members was about
$200 per year, while the wealthiest gave a little more than $1,000.

	This speaks volumes to me.  What does it say to you?

Richard

    
    	It says to me that some people have money 
    
    
    and
    
    
    	Money has some people.

    I remember seeing a PBS report on lottery winners. 60% were worse off
    than before they won the money. 30% stayed the same and 10% were better
    off and most of them were wealthy before hitting the jackpot anyway.
    Apparently those with money know how to manage a big win better than
    those who never had it.

    Many found that with the problems the money solved for them, the new ones 
    that replaced them were more painful. 

    In short, few found happiness in their newly obtained wealth.

    St. Francis knew something about lady poverty that we need to discover.

    Peace
    Jim

I submit that the wealthy and the materially centered are spiritually stunted
(not that absence of wealth is any guarantee of spiritual depth).

I submit that, generally, the poor are more generous with others than the
rich.  I submit that the Bible affirms that God possesses a special regard
and care for the poor.

I submit that submerged beneath the patriotic rhetoric and flag-waving, the
factors significantly influencing the waging of war are invariably and
inextricably intertwined with a struggle over economic power or advantage.
(See James 3.16)

I submit that the example of Jesus calls us to find our security not in
material comforts and conveniences, but instead in the simple and in the
spiritual.  Jesus warns us that wherever our treasure is, there also would
be our hearts.

Peace,
Richard

Mark 10:23-25

    Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it will
    be for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God!"  And the
    disciples were perplexed at these words.  But Jesus said to them again,
    "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!  It is easier for
    a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich
    to enter the kingdom of God."

I am increasingly convinced that if there is a problem, the problem lies not
with being poor.  The problem lies with being rich.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard .10,
    
    I think the issue is more what one *does* with the "riches" one has,
    whether economic standards defines one as wealthy or poor.
    
    (Personally, philanthropy is one of my favored career paths.)
    
    Love,
    Karen

    Re: .11
    
    Oh, but Karen.  I utterly agree!
    
    Richard

re.10 

Richard,

;I am increasingly convinced that if there is a problem, the problem lies not
;with being poor.  The problem lies with being rich.

I do not believe that the problem lies with being rich, in the material sense.
In a way I view myself as being rich materially, for example not long ago it
was only kings and the wealthy who had water brought to them. The poor had to
fetch their own. Yet today I have water brought to my home, so in contrast
with days gone bye and many of those in undeveloped countries I live like a 
king . 1 Timothy 6:9,10 NWT shows that it is ones attitude towards riches that 
is the problem, it reads "However, those who are determined to be rich fall into
temptation and a snare and many senseless and hurtful desires, which plunge men
into destruction and ruin. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of
injurious things, and by reaching out for this love some have stabbed themselves
all over with many pains." It is the "love of money" and not "money" that is
the problem.

Christians are told to "Keep on, then, seeking first the kingdom and his 
righteousness, and all these [other] things will be added to YOU" (Matt 6:33 NWT)
So Christians should put kingdom interests first and not be anxious of obtain
vast amounts of material wealth, all these "[other] things" the things that
one needs to sustain oneself will be added to you. Due to circumstances of
being rich, one could use this wealth to further kingdom interests showing
that one is putting the kingdom first in our lives and are not anxious about 
tomorrow. But to do so one would need to clearly identify what are kingdom 
interests, ie not lining the pockets and vastly improving the material lifestyle
of TV evanglists (this would definitely not further kingdom interests).

In the long term, God wants *all* of righteous mankind to be blessed materially
as brought out by Isaiah  65:21,22a NWT "And they will certainly build houses 
and have occupancy; and they will certainly plant vineyards and eat [their] 
fruitage. They will not build and someone else have occupancy; and they will
not plant and someone else do the eating." It is God through his kingdom that 
will bring this about, how refreshing these promises must be for those ones who
are seeking righteousness (in God's eyes) who are also materially poor. 

Phil.

    So few materially wealthy people are willing entrust any significant
    portion of their wealth to heaven.  Maybe heaven's CD rates aren't
    competitive enough.  Maybe a chunk of heaven doesn't increase in value
    proportionate to chunks of Earthly real estate.  I just don't know.
    
    All I know is where their hearts are.  (Need I quote the verse?)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re .14

Richard,

But aren't such ones deceiving themselves, all the material things that they 
crave for will eventually perish/rust. They will be eventually left with
nothing having had their payment made in full now. They should store things
in heaven were neither moth or rust will consume , compare Matthew 6:19-21.

A major problem with amassing material things is the time it takes from you.
If you have two cars, then you have two cars to wash. If you have a yacht
then you are encouraged to spend alot of time sailing it and keeping it
ship shape. If one was to store things in heaven then one would need to
keep ones eye simple.


Phil. 

    "The cost of anything, is the amount of life one has to sacrifice to
     obtain it". Henry David Thoreau.

    The life you sacrifice is often your spiritual life.

    Peace
    Jim

    Re: .15
    
    Phil,
    
    	Yes.  I agree.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re: .16
    
    Jim,
    
    	I'm thoreau-ly convinced of the truth of it.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Richard - 

They're probably coming from me!  GROAN!!!

;-)

Nanci

    "Ho! Everyone who thirsts,
     Come to the waters:
     And you who have no money,
     Come, buy and eat.
     Yes, come, buy wine and milk          
     Without money and without price.
    
     Why do you spend money for what is 
      not bread,
     And your wages for what does not 
      satisfy?
     Listen diligently to Me, and eat what is
      good,
     And let your soul delight itself in 
      abundance."                   
                           Isaiah 55:1-2      

Luke 12.16-20 (TEV)

	Then Jesus told them this parable:  "There was once a rich man who
had land which bore good crops.  He began to think to himself, 'I don't have
a place to keep all my crops.  What can I do?  This is what I'll do,' he
told himself: 'I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, where I will
store the grain and all my other goods.  Then I will say to myself, Lucky
man!  You have all the good things you need for many years.  Take life easy,
eat, drink, enjoy yourself!'  But God said to him, 'You fool!  This very
night you will have to give up your life; then who will get all these things
you have kept for yourself?'"

	Please note that the rich man in this story is not someone we'd
consider a bad person.  He didn't do anything overtly immoral.  In fact,
his plan makes a lot of what is called "good business sense."

Peace,
Richard

    Re. 21
    
    	Is this not a sin of which we're all are guilty?  How many of us
    are unrepentant in our accumulation of wealth, though even the poorest
    among us are materially richer than the vast majority of people who also
    inhabit the Earth?
    
    Richard

    re: 22                

    We repent for sin.  What you call "our accumulation of wealth" is what
    others call "the design, manufacture, and selling of  goods and services".

    I don't repent for having a house, a car, a videocamera, etc.  These
    are not sins.

    This is wacky theology.

    Living and earning wages is good for me, my family and glorifies God. 
    The money that buys a Nintendo cartridge for my son pays a wage to the
    retailer here in New York, taxes to New York State, and a wage to a
    fellow working in Yokahama.

    What is sin, then?  The love of money and goods.  In classical
    Christian theology: greed and covetousness.  This is evident in people
    whose love of money and goods transcends their love of God.  This is
    evident in people who lack generosity and compassion for the poor in
    both time and money.

	RE: .22 Pat said it far better than I could have. We repent sin
	we do not repent the good that we do. Luke 10:7 "...: for the labourer
	is worthy of his hire...." We work, we get paid. As long as we give
	value for value recieved we commit no sin.

			Alfred

    I don't know that there is a simple answer to this question, but I am
    have to admit to being uncomfortable with my lifestyle, knowing that
    there are so many who cannot enjoy the luxuries that I do.  The Quakers
    have a testimony on simplicity, one that I don't apply nearly enough in
    my own life.  I don't there is an exact guideline that we can point to
    and say "Above this level is excessive wealth, and below this level is
    okay".  I think the real question is what can we can and should be
    doing for the poor; I think that living simply is part of the answer,
    in a vague sense.  But perhaps *how* we do this is a question that each
    individual has to answer for themselves.

    Perhaps Millard Fuller, the millionaire who founded Habitat For
    Humanity, might provide an interesting example when considering this
    question.

    -- Mike

    Re: .23 & .24
    
Pretty neat justification you've got there.  It's hard for me to believe yours
is same faith as held by Francis of Assisi, Albert Schweitzer and Mother
Theresa of Calcutta.  It sounds more to me like the "trickle-down" theology
of St. Ronald the Reagan.

Then again.  Maybe mine is the wacky theology.  Maybe if the sin is not
associated with sex, it's not a serious sin.

That's the message I'm being sent.

Richard

re:  .26

Richard,

No, it's not the faith of Mother Theresa, it's the faith of
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (who were "wealthy").  :-)

Collis

    Re: .27
    
    We don't then take what Jesus said seriously, except when it doesn't
    put us in a bad light.
    
    Richard

Jesus makes abundantly clear the cost of being a disciple.  See Luke
14.25-33, which ends with Jesus stating, "None of you can be my disciple
unless you give up everything you have."

I say few are willing to pay the price.  It's obvious to me that some
who've spoken here wouldn't, and that they're fooling only themselves
if they think they're Christ's disciples.

I refer the reader also to the basenote, 180.0.

There are *loads* of other references.  Approximately 20% of Luke is
devoted to issues surrounding possessions and wealth.

Richard

    Richard, you don't know me enough to compare me to Francis, Schweitzer,
    or Mother Theresa.  You don't want to take this to the personal level,
    you really don't.
    
    Some people are called to totally dedicate their life in the Lord's
    service.  Some are able to be full-time for the Lord for some period in
    their life.  Hopefully all are able to share their time and treasure in
    the service of the Lord.
    
    By entering notes here, we show that we are all Digital employees.
    Without any guilt whatsoever I work here and earn my salary.  The
    economic vitality of the United States and New York where I live makes
    a living for millions.
    
    The shots at Ronald Reagan and sins against the virtue of chastity are
    really weak.
                          

Note 180.30

>    Richard, you don't know me enough to compare me to Francis, Schweitzer,
>    or Mother Theresa.

That was never my intention.  Please don't read it in.

>    By entering notes here, we show that we are all Digital employees.
>    Without any guilt whatsoever I work here and earn my salary.  The
>    economic vitality of the United States and New York where I live makes
>    a living for millions.

Any other collateral implications you can think of?  For example, if we didn't
possess such wealth we wouldn't need a such an enormous military and that would
surely put a lot of people out of a job, wouldn't it?

>    The shots at Ronald Reagan and sins against the virtue of chastity are
>    really weak.
                          
Spoken like a true Boxer.

Richard

Also see Note 91.653

>  For example, if we didn't
>possess such wealth we wouldn't need a such an enormous military 

	This is a common and I think naive view. We would need a much
	larger military if we had less wealth. Nations are attacked in this
	world not because they are rich but because they have land. We
	can hardly be faulted for having land as a nation. Nations are
	also attacked because they are weak. Disbanding an army, especially
	of a poor country, is an invitation for evil to move in. And rich
	countries need a smaller military because they are able to afford
	the marerial to make more effective use of their people. This saves
	lives in the long run.

			Alfred

Re: .33 Alfred

>	We can hardly be faulted for having land as a nation.

Yeah, we stole it fair and square. ;^)

				-- Bob

>>	We can hardly be faulted for having land as a nation.
>
>Yeah, we stole it fair and square. ;^)

	Not me. It was taken long before my family arrived. :-)

			Alfred

    re: .33
    
    Alfred,
    
    	Yours, I think, is the more common view.  It's the old 'survival
    of the fittest' way of looking at who dominates whom.
    
    	It makes a lot of sense, really.  It just doesn't mesh in my
    understanding of the teachings of the Rabbi of Nazareth.
    
    Richard

    Jesus never told the Jews that they should surrender their Promised
    Land back to the Cannanites and Jebusites.  Joshua was a conqueror, not
    a negotiator.

From the title song of an album by the monks of Weston Priory, "That There
May Be Bread," come these profoundly insightful words:

(one voice) "Lord, who is my neighbor?"
(second voice) "The one who struggles and the one you overlook when your
                comfort you secure."

Richard

MONEY AND POWER

excepts from WHERE TWO WORLDS TOUCH - SPIRITUAL RITES OF PASSAGE,
by Gloria D. Karpinski.

We seem to have confused the warning against worshipping money with the
ability to use money as a resource.  Nearly every devotee I know who aspires
to grow spiritually -- including myself -- has had to wrestle with questions
around money.  Our spiritual histories are full of directives to renounce
money in favor of God.

One of the points of renunciation is to destroy addictions and illusions.
There is no question that money can be very addictive and a potential
identity trap.

Yet denouncing money can be as big a trap as the allure of money itself.  It
puts money aside and says "you are not of God."  I am suspicious that any
resource that we exclude from wholeness is less about God and more about the
polarization that grows out of our fears.  We have historically assigned money
to one moral polarity or the other.  We have either thought that having money
was a sign of God's blessings or that it reigned supreme as the arch enemy of
spirituality.  Instead of being neutral, perceiving money as a human creation,
the agreed-upon symbols of value, we have set money up as a battleground
between Spirit and matter.  If your commitment requires money, it will be
magnetized to you if you are uncompromised in your belief about what you
need.  You can also block money if you subconsciously think you don't
deserve it.

At this point you have to ask yourself some crucial questions:

o  Can I handle money with responsibility but indifference?
o  Do I truly see money as just another resource -- like my talents, time,
   or energy?
o  Do I try to leave God out of my personal finances and go it alone?
o  Do I really believe that who I am is not a question of how much money
   I have?
o  Is my identity clear enough as a spiritual being that I can afford to
   have money?
o  Do I secretly suspect that somebody out there is either blessing or
   denying me money?
o  Are my attitudes toward money really mine, or have I merely internalized
   others' opinions?

When your are committing to your highest purposes, a great deal of power may
being moving through you.  it's not your personal power, it's universal
power -- God's power, if you will.  But it does come through you personally.
I know a teacher who says that people are a lot more willing to be God's
love on Earth than God's power.  Ask yourself:

o  Is it okay for spiritual power to act through me?
o  Does some part of me find that not okay?
o  Am I afraid of it?
o  Do I fear I will misuse it?
o  Am I not worthy of it?
o  If my commitment takes me into a key position, that affects other
   people and makes changes, can my ego remain neutral about it?

As serious spiritual students, we have to resolve our personal ambivalence
about money, power, and a number of other issues.  And this can show up during
a cycle of commitment.  To fully anchor the commitment we are being led to
make, we need to develop a clear focus -- the single eye.

	"Look upon our treasures, the furniture of our houses, and
our garments, and try whether the seeds of war have nourishment in
these possessions."

					- John Woolman
					  18th century Quaker

"The Census Bureau recently released figures showing that the number of
full-time U.S. workers employed in low-wage jobs has increased 6 percent
(fourteen million people) since 1979 [The Reagan-Bush tenure].  Low-wage
jobs are defined as jobs paying below the poverty line for a family of
four....This reflects a reversal of a pattern of income gain throughout
the sixties and seventies.

Overall, inflation-adjusted median wages for U.S. workers fell 7.3 percent
in the same period....

But for those who can keep their salaries at or above $1 million, things
have been pretty rosy.  Folks in this income bracket saw their income
increase 2,184 percent in the 1980s."

The Other Side magazine
July-August 1992 issue
p. 45

Peace,
Richard

re Note 180.42 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     It seems ol' Basil possessed some wacky theology, too!

        Did you intend some smiley-faces on this?  The "theology" you
        quoted seems about as "wacky" as Jesus himself.  It's not the
        world's wisdom.  It's profound.  It's simple.  It's radical. 
        It's fundamental.

        Bob

Re: .23
    
	"We call someone who steals another person's clothes a thief.
Should we not give the same name to one who could clothe the naked and does
not?  The bread in the cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat hanging unused
in your closet belongs to the person who needs it; the shoes rotting in your
closet belong to the one who has no shoes; the money you hoard up belongs to
the poor."

				- Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea


    It seems ol' Basil possessed some wacky theology, too!

    Oops!  I mis-marked the entry I was addressing.  I've corrected and
    re-posted 180.42.
    
    I meant it to be tongue-in-cheek.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    
	Jesus calls us from the worship /
		Of the vain world's golden store; /
	From each idol that would keep us, /
		Saying, "Christian, love me more."

Luke 14, starting with verse 12:

	Then Jesus said to his host, "When you give a lunch or dinner, do not
invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or your rich neighbors -
or they will invite you back, and in this way you will be paid for what you
did.  When you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, and
the blind; and you will be blessed, because they are not able to pay you
back.  God will repay you on the day the good people rise from death."

	Here is yet another largely ignored teaching of Jesus' which speaks
to the sharing of material wealth.
    
    Richard
    

    Last week my daughter got an interesting lesson in stewardship-
    sharing:---
    
     The Jr High's went on a scavanger hunt for that week's activity---
       Each team of three kids was assigned to a parent/driver--and were 
       given a list of "most needed items" for our Emergency Pantry
       (dry goods,paper towels,toilet paper,canned foods, etc)
    
      They then set off to various neighborhoods,sub-divisions etc to
     gather as much as possible within a 2 hr limit. They all had a
     prepared speech explaining the purpose of the hunt to the homeowners
     they encountered.
    
       What Jessica (and most of her friends) discovered was that the
     folks in the big,expensive houses tended to give a lot less than
     those in the smaller,"poorer" neighborhoods...(she described one
     woman who tried her best to give 'em one of *every* item on the
     list!!  :-)
    
      The kids gathered several cartons of food for the pantry that
     evening,,had a good time ,,and learned a bit about stwardship
     all at the same time!
    
     Doug 
    
     PS.  My explanation to Jessica was to quote Danny Thomas,,,(he was
    asked why he gave so much to charity and replied)  
        "There are two types of wealthy people---'Keepers' and 'Givers'--
         'Keepers *live* well,,,, but 'Givers" *sleep* well !"

re Note 180.47 by MIMS::LANGDON_D:

>        What Jessica (and most of her friends) discovered was that the
>      folks in the big,expensive houses tended to give a lot less than
>      those in the smaller,"poorer" neighborhoods...(she described one
>      woman who tried her best to give 'em one of *every* item on the
>      list!!  :-)
  
        There are scientific studies that have reported the same
        findings.

        Bob

    First of all, welcome, Doug!
    
    I, too, have found that middle and lower income people are
    more generous, proportionate to what they have to give.
    
    Jesus spoke to this, too, in the story of the widow's mite.
    (Luke 21, Mark 12)  So the condition is evidently not limited
    to just the present.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Apparantly its easier for a person making $25000 to give $2500 than it
    is for a person making $100000 to give $10000 (according to
    statistics).
    
    jeff

    I also think it has a lot to do with the fact that, most of the time, 
    people who are in the low and mid range economic levels have been 
    closer to or at the poverty level than most high income people.  It
    doesn't take as much of a stretch for the lower and middle income folks
    to remember what it was like to struggle and feel some empathy for the
    impoverished.
    
    Nanci 

	Not everyone is tightening the belt this recession.  The banking
industry is doing fine -- primarily because it is paying out the lowest
passbook interest rates since 1936, while still charging high interest on
loans.  In the second quarter of 1992, commercial banks earned a record-
breaking $7.9 billion.  This year, they expect to surpass their 1988
earnings ($24.9 billion), the highest on record.

Source:  The Other Side magazine, November-December 1992 issue

    Which topic did Jesus address more often, prayer or possessions?
    
    The answer is in the next reply.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Answer to .53: possessions (including money and the sharing of wealth)
    
    The only topic Jesus talked about more than he did possessions was
    the Kingdom of God.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Acts 20:35  I have showed you all things, how that so labouring ye
ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the
Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to
receive. (KJV)

	It is truly a rare thing for Paul to quote Jesus.  Here he does.
Notice the context.

Peace,
Richard

Note 942.188

>    How many of us could give up all the material wealth today and follow
>    Jesus?

A profound question, one which most prefer to "spiritualize" away,
rather than taking to heart and making a dramatic difference in how
they choose to live.

Shalom,
Richard

Note 9.1733

>   God tells us to be prudent with our finances.

You might compare your understanding against the teachings of Jesus,
especially as recorded in the gospel of Luke.  Recall especially what
Jesus said of the children of the light.

>    You act as if it is not virtuous to not trust government with something 
>    as important as healthcare.

Oh?  A misreading on your part, I assure you.
    
>    As it stands, my wife is diabetic.  I cannot get life insurance and
>    health insurance would be impossible without a company like Digital.  

You are blessed compared to many.  I suppose you know that.

Shalom,
Richard

re Note 9.1728 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Universal coverage is an admirable goal but I'm not willing to sell out
>     the country to get it.
  
        Conservatives are fond of saying "there's no free lunch", and
        it's quite true:  if the price of "universal coverage" is
        selling out the country, then there must be a price to be
        paid for the benefits obtained by *not* having it --
        unfortunately, *that* price is borne by those who need health
        care and can't get it.

        To paraphrase Alan Sherman (who said "Hail to thee Fat
        Person, you kept us out of war"), I say:

        	"Hail to thee, sick but untreated person, thanks to you 
        	our economy remains strong!"

        Bob

    Actually Richard, we are blessed.  But Michele is going in for an operation 
    this Tuesday....malfunctioning liver.  
    
    I don't take preexisting conditions lightely.  Michele miscarried six
    years ago.  We thought we were insured and after I got the $2,500
    hospital bill, I worked 80 hours per week to pay it.  Ins. company
    never informed us we weren't covered.  Bad apples but a business
    nonetheless.
    
    As I stated, there are many ways to reform healthcare first.  PRUDENT
    spending on this would include...
    
    A. Offer gov't grants to hospitals to put AXP technology.  The average
    hospital is using PDP11 technology.  This would cut costs dramatically.
    
    B. Do major sweeps on tort reform.  No more million dollar awards
    because Ethel spilt McDonalds coffee on her lap in the car.  There
    again, major cuts.
    
    C. 90% of the required paperwork is by government regulation.  This
    bogs down system and costs big bucks.  Not necessary.
    
    There...I just cut medical costs dramatically.  Richard, instead you
    know government causes most of the problem, now you want to hand over
    the control to the same?  That would be an UNGODLY, imprudent move on
    our part.  I don't say no reform, I say take the time needed to
    implement the correct reform.  That is prudent and practical.  You're
    not doing the poor or those with preexisting conditions any
    compassionate good by handing over 14% of the private sector to Bill
    Clinton et al!
    
    -Jack

Note 988.118

>    Kind of like comparing these two sayings...
    
>    "Money is the root of all evil". Wrong...
    
>    "The Love of money is the root to all KINDS of evil"  Correct...
    
    Yet a lot of people who'll tell you they don't harbor a love of money
    are very conspicuously under the reins of a desire for wealth.

    Richard

    Don't doubt you at all Richard!!
    
    -Jack