I think what you’re saying is: Godly living does not expect prosperous results. Or perhaps Godly living only expects prosperous results for others. Or even, Godly living will eventually produce prosperity; but usually not the kind of prosperity one would expect. AND hopefully not the kind of prosperity that would distract or overshadow the Godly life.

Sorry but I think we’re far beyond just “certain sectors of our society” who are obsessed with (almost forcibly) getting something for nothing. Today, if you’re not seeking and getting something for nothing you’d better seek psychological help. Our government/media, nearly down to a local level, is a huge vending machine that takes free tokens. Our monetary system is a joke because of it, to where the only difference between the rich and poor is a few bits of binary floating in space. (Do you know of anyplace that just takes cash anymore?) In fact, I’m being positively oppressed by this State-sponsored “unbridled want”. I’m supposed to have an orgasm 3 times a day, a divorce at least twice by now, addiction to EVERYTHING, and a huge tax refund every year. And if I object to all this prosperity, then I must be a religious nut or an alcoholic. Public treasury? What public treasury? That’s all been spent 20 times over, don’t you know? We make wayyyy more profit selling our debt than we ever could by having a public treasury! I don’t think I’m being overly cynical in saying that we have already been overcome by this immorality disguised as free prosperity. In the old days, tyranny controlled the masses through torture and death. Nowadays it’s through cash and merchandise. We haveconfirmed that “democracy, freedom, free markets, etc., only works for a few generations before the “unbridled want” and covetousness of the masses (NOT the rich) destroys the system.” Who knows what’ll happen next? Maybe a nation in decline is part of its healthy evolution. Maybe the pole shift on 12/11/2012 will fry us all to a crisp anyway.

But seriously, I don’t see a strong enough solution other than forced dismantlement. At this point, righteousness is rarely popular, and truth is always too elusive to too many. Revolution is very scary and destructive. Perhaps we’ll get lucky and have a real leader come along and drag what’s left of us back from the cliff. I have my doubts. There’s too many things a real leader is not allowed to say.

I think there is some truth in your statement that, “Maybe if we focused more on that higher priority of spiritualistic improvement, the need for economic improvement will become less and less urgent or valuable. Therefore a bit more possible(?), maybe.”

I would not say that, “the need for economic improvement will become less and less urgent or valuable,” if we are working harder at getter our spiritual houses in order, but I would affirm that, if we do, it will become “a bit more possible” for our culture to be economically prosperous.

Economic improvement isn’t made less necessary by drawing closer to God. In fact, the closer we draw to God, the more we want to be responsible for ourselves and take care of others, starting with our own families. But I do believe that “free markets, the rule of law, and freedom” only work well in a culture where the majority of people are behaving in more or less moral ways, economically. The Founders knew this, and many made comments to the effect that democracy and republicanism are fit systems of government only for a moral people who acknowledge their Creator.

Unfortunately, the combination of freedom and democracy, in the absence of a moral underpinning supplied by faith in God and His teachings, can result in a majority that votes for itself bread and circuses from the public largesse, meaning, of course, legalized theft in the form of taxation and redistribution, more or less without limit since the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The way our electorate is functioning now, it seems that certain sectors of society will vote almost exclusively for the politician who promises the most benefits from the public treasury.

If the class of takers continues to grow, and the class of makers continues to shrink, we will prove that democracy, freedom, free markets, etc., only works for a few generations before the “unbridled want” and covetousness of the masses (NOT the rich) destroys the system.

So yes, the acknowledgment of our responsibilities to God and (economically) moral living DO undergird economic success for the society as whole, over the long term. And even for individuals, prospects are pretty good for people who finish some kind of education and get a job, don’t make babies out of wedlock, get married and stay married, stay out of jail, don’t get addicted, and don’t succumb to “unbridled want” by spending money they don’t have… yet. There aren’t many “poor” people in our society for whom all the above are true who will STAY “poor” for a generation; and if they succeed in passing these values along to their own kids, that generation will do far better.

So yes: Godly (which reflects in moral) living does tend to result in material prosperity, though of course there will be many exceptions and qualifiers. Please note, I am not promoting some kind of “prosperity gospel,” nor am I “judging” the poor as individuals or “blaming the victim.” I am making essentially sociological observations about trends in society, and which patterns of belief and behavior seem to correlate with economic success.

Multi-generational poverty in the modern USA is almost exclusively a spiritual problem.

I say, it doesn’t matter how we think we should help “them”. The poor will continue to think they are poor, (even if they are rich) as long as society has a reason to encourage his discontentment, and especially his ignorance of it. Perhaps unacted-upon covetousness (in our minds) isn’t the right word. It is “acceptable discontentment” as our society’s cause for defining class, and more importantly, pursuing higher class. It doesn’t matter how rich you get, if you are discontent, preferably unknowingly indoctrinated to be discontent, you are forever poor, trying to be rich; and for “good” reason.

Maybe spirituality does relate to economics. I guess I go a little further than you by saying: improving the overall economic condition of the human race may make his spiritual problem worse, or at least more distracted. And that’s not to say that economic improvement is a bad (or good) thing. Why do we want to improve economic development in the first place? Maybe if we focused more on that higher priority of spiritualistic improvement, the need for economic improvement will become less and less urgent or valuable. Therefore a bit more possible(?), maybe. Yes, I know the other-hand. Affluence frees up the luxury time to think about spiritual things. But when does our pursuit of happiness take up too much of our spiritual time?

There’s something to be learned from the old story of the poor kid from the hood whose close (religious) family looked after his spiritual needs first; probably because they could offer nothing else. Then at some point, as the happy child inevitably becomes “successful”, he has the “opportunity” to look around and be surprised at all the “things” he’s been missing. On some level, he was content in his “ignorance of poverty” until he was made to realize he was “poor”. As he judges himself as being poor, his happiness now has a new, unexpected adversary. He has unwittingly been put on the endless path of material discontentment, and now he must spend nearly all of his mental and spiritual energy overcoming it. On the surface, we call this process part of “the American Dream”. I’m sorry to be so cynical, and you’re right, it’s better to feel proud. A dream is the best we’ve come up with so far. I’m just glad you never said it was perfect.

The close cousin of covetousness is greed, but they are not the same thing. Greed is greatly desiring a thing that is not yours to have (whether or not it “belongs” to someone else), desiring a thing so much that you are willing to do immoral things to have it, or putting your desire for it above everything else, even if you aren’t stealing it or doing anything directly immoral to get it.

I think you are asking the wrong question when you ask, “Is a minor purpose for being rich to help the poor? As the capitalist model accomplishes this certain economic “balance,” is that an adequate excuse for the most common motivation for being rich: unbridled want?”

Being rich is an effect, in our culture. It is an effect of ability, determination, self-discipline, and a certain amount of luck. But if “unbridled want” was the primary determiner, virtually everyone would be rich, don’t you think? “Unbridled want” is exceedingly common, and has always been.

In fact, for most people who are “rich,” the dominant commonality is that they have conquered their “unbridled want” so that they can discipline themselves to spend only on essentials as they build their wealth. You can always find someone who inherited their wealth, of course… but mostly it will be wealth that was created by a predecessor with some degree of “ability, determination, self-discipline, and a certain amount of luck.”

What if Steve Jobs had spent the money on a new car instead of the parts to build a computer in a garage? What if Bill Gates had spent his time (and money) playing pinball, or bowling, or just hanging out with friends, instead of writing code? Those would be the behaviors of people suffering from “unbridled want,” which is most folks without the discipline to save and moderate their consumption. Do you want to see some “unbridled want”? Go down to the local social services office and count the obese people standing in line because their check didn’t come on time. They want, alright, but not because they are particularly in want.

People tend to become wealthy in the USA not by explicitly “trying to become rich,” but by doing something they like to do, and being passionate about it, and finding a way to make money doing it. You mentioned Rush, and he’s a perfect example, of someone who was an unknown local broadcaster for quite a while before he become an internationally famous and rich broadcaster, doing the same thing he had been passionately doing all along.

Most wealthy people in the USA did not inherit it, though they would like to pass it on to their kids.

The main characteristic of “unbridled want” is that a person can’t avoid spending NOW, for short-term gratification. That is not how “the rich” got that way.

I’m not quite sure what troubles you that poor people have to keep working. It would be better to celebrate the fact that they have the option to do so, and don’t have to live as subsistence farmers with very short lifespans. You also seem to be concerned about the fact that, for the very first time in human history, it is possible for most people not to be poor. There has never been anything like this before. For just about forever, nearly everyone has been poor nearly always. But it is now possible, if the world adopts the western economic model of relatively free markets, capitalism, and freedom, that in a generation, or two, or three, HUGE numbers of the world now living in poverty could be more or less “middle class.” It really can be. One of the biggest reasons for my utter disdain of the “social justice” blather on the Christian Left is that, if they really cared a bean about the poor, and had bothered to inform themselves of economics and history, they would be the biggest supporters of freedom and free markets, the biggest enemies of socialism, and the biggest activists towards installing western-style free market economies everyplace they could.

For some reason, the left is deeply concerned with national sovereignty whenever the discussion is whether or not the USA should topple a dictator and install a more democratic, market driven government, but not so concerned with national sovereignty when the issue is illegal aliens flooding the USA.

Improving the overall economic condition of the human race won’t solve its spiritual problem. But there is nothing to suggest that the poor are any closer to God than the middle-class or “rich.” Nor is there any scriptural basis for the assumption. And there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that the poor are one whit less consumed by greed, covetousness, or “unbridled want” than anyone else.

RE: capitalism. I have been a long-time listener and appreciator of Rush Limbaugh (believe it or not) and he’s always said what you’re talking about very well. But I always must question wisdom. I will speak liberal now for just 2 sentences. Is a minor purpose for being rich to help the poor? As the capitalist model accomplishes this certain economic “balance,” is that an adequate excuse for the most common motivation for being rich: unbridled want? Alright that’s enough. The flaw in this model is that the rich (as a group) have great power over their suppliers. They could stop buying all that stuff tomorrow and not even notice. Whereas the poor guy can’t just stop working for the guy that just stopped selling all that stuff. That’ll put him out on the street. So in order to keep the rich buying and the poor off the streets, our media and government must come up with at least 3 new things a year that the rest of us desperately need that we didn’t need the year before. The middle class must keep the rich richer and the poor off the streets by filling up our lives with more and more useless stuff! Don’t you think that’s materialism, gone a little bit insane? There’s only 24 hours in a day; 15 of which is spent earning the money to pay for all this oppression. I’m running out of time to sleep and shower, let alone tend to all this stuff I’m supposed to really really need. Will this growth spiral ever end? Must every generation have more “opportunity” than the generation before it, forever? It’s not even a question about limited resources. The liberals sold that down the river already. For me it is a question about a corrupted morality. Can there be prosperity without covetous materialism: which is covering up and preserving the real problem: supply-side economics?

True, God has nothing against rich people. Perhaps it is the rich person who “has it all”, and therefore can find nothing from God. Rich or poor, and anything in-between, means nothing if you’re content. Contentment means no longer in want. There’s 2 kinds of rich people I’ve known. The most common is like you say, idol worship. The rarer rich guy is the one whose riches are more of a burden, or distraction to their passion. They have realized that their wealth has given them power over people, and they didn’t want that. In fact, most of them hate it because they must accept their power and tightly control it, or watch it potentially bring suffering to others.

Just curious, innermore… but aren’t you promoting some kind of material/spiritual dualism here? Some kind of “spiritual good but material bad” approach? Maybe I’m misunderstanding your intent.

But idol worship is hardly new. It is the belief that material acquisition is the main point of life, or that the chief way to fulfillment and “happiness” is to satisfy material desires, that is the problem, not the possessions/affluence themselves. Material prosperity is not “futile” as long as it is not understood as being the essential point of life, and, in fact, it can be a means to enable success at more important things.

It’s hard to be missional when you’re starving yourself, or too busy dodging bullets to contribute to the care of those around you. The essence of the capitalist/free market model, even when you are a rich person buying luxuries for yourself (fancy cars, boats, multiple homes, lots of clothes, pedicures, manicures, beauty treatments, you name it…..) is that all of those purchases benefit all kinds of people who worked in the economic chain that brought those things to you.

Being rich, and acting rich, and even conspicuously consuming the goods/services of society, is not by definition bad… because it does not harm anyone else, it provides a lot of jobs along the way, and it creates economic capacity to do more things for more people in the society.

I LIKE rich people, mostly. They are the ones who hire me to write music for them. They are the ones who send their kids to college so I have a teaching job. They are the ones who donate large sums to build structures on campus. They are the season ticket holders to concert series that I arrange music for. And so on.

There is nothing in Judeo-Christian teaching, properly understood, that should lead anyone to think that God has anything against rich people who do not abuse the power they have… i.e., they honor their contracts, they pay fairly for services and goods, etc.

I don’t see how the richer donating to the poorer “sustains the material/personal/spiritual discontentment of both parties.” It seems to me that it allows one to eat, and helps the other remember what really matters.

Currently, the world has not come up with a solution to this eternally expanding material prosperity futility. It’s probably too big now for religion to fight it much, so I guess we’ll just deny it, and let it play out. Besides, you can’t take it with you when you die. Just store it in your daughter-in-law’s garage.

In either case, your stance is not biblical, I’m afraid. I think you cannot find a passage that supports either. In any case, purely pragmatically speaking, those who have little economically are going to be of very little use in providing relief for those in need. As I read the Bible, I don’t see God hating “the rich” because of their wealth, but rather chastising those who abuse their power, something “the rich” could do in Biblical times that “the rich” in American cannot do to anything approximating the same degree, because our society is governed less by persons than by laws (though not perfectly, of course).

In Biblical parlance, “the rich” doesn’t mean people with a few extra goats, it means people who have direct, unambiguous political power to do unto their “lessers” as they wish. In Biblical times, if you were rich, and managed to hang onto it, it was because you were well-connected politically, period, and had a likely monopoly on the violent imposition of your will on most others in your life.

I don’t know if they have taught you this in your classes…. I’m afraid I see a lot of conflation of the ancient rich and modern rich in the interpretation of biblical texts, something possible only for those ignorant of some proportion of history, economics, law and/or scripture.

As far as I can see, when God was about to bless someone in the Old Testament, he generally promised to make them rich, among other things. And N.T. injunctions aimed at “the rich” are about them abusing their direct physical power over others, not eating a nice lunch in the shade and owning an extra donkey. Of course, we should all give… but that applies to the poor, too, as the NT makes abundantly clear.

As far as abortion, a lot of Christian social justice types are into the idea of a “consistent ethic of life,” by which they mean opposing abortion, capital punishment, and war. I don’t think that means they’re out to make getting abortions easier or to help more women abort their babies. The amount of abortions in this country (since I don’t know anything about abortions outside the US), though, is surely a symptom of a bigger problem, a problem even bigger than “getting an abortion is legal.”

I think the “consistent ethic of life” perspective fails because it does not discriminate between virtually ALWAYS unjust taking of human life (abortion) and virtually always just taking of human life (capital punishment), and merely necessary taking of human life (which is usually a mixture of “just” and “unjust”, but difficult or impossible to avoid) in war, self-defense, etc.

And yes: if you fail to vote for politicians who will pursue policies, laws and judges who will eventually reduce or end legal abortion, then it really doesn’t matter if you’re “out to make getting abortions easier or to help more women abort their babies,” because that will still be the effect of your decisions. Willful blindness to that fact, practiced by many on the left who congratulate themselves on their “consistent ethic of life,” has led to a paralysis of the ability of Christians to undo the Shoah of legal abortion, which they could have done had they merely voted together. There aren’t many policy goals that are less ambiguous, and about which Christians should be in less doubt, than that. After Roe v. Wade, abortion rates went up by a factor of TEN. Roe v. Wade is the original non-just law, the single biggest “social injustice” in American life today.

And I always wonder at the inability of some Christians to recognize that simple fact.