Christianity with the Bling-Bling
 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...533448,00.html

According to this article, a growing number of Christian Evangelicals are starting to preach that God wants his followers to be rich (or at least that God does not mind if his followers are rich), and that following Christ does not mean that one should not attempt to obtain vast amounts of material wealth.

I guess that this is a natural evolution since the Evangelicals have politically alligned with the Republican party in America--traditionally (but by no means exclusively) the party of the wealthy.

Strikes me as interesting fodder for discussion, though. Thoughts?

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Those are the best 1 and a half paragraphs of a story ever.

Hmm...I never heard about this. It seems odd to me that some evangelicals would actually have time to spend on something like this. I don't see any harm in being rich, but to preach on it so much so that it becomes a story in Time Magazine seems kind of silly to me.

Coming this October to a church near you:


Christianity 2 - Revenge of the Pharisees

More rigid. More insane. They're back and they're pissed.

Bah. The prosperity movement was here in the 80's. This is nothing new.

One thought I'd point out here (because this verse gets tossed around a bunch when the prosperity movement comes up): harder != impossible.

It's easier to rely on God when you don't have anything (and the cares that go along with owning and maintaining stuff). Folks have a tendency to ignore their relationship with God when they have plenty. I think Jesus was just pointing out this fact rather than condemning the rich just because they're rich.

/Agree. If you're rich it's easy to let the ego take over and think you have the answers for everything.

Drake: But remember the line previous to that, "You cannot serve God and mammon."

I'll give you that the prosperity movement has been around since the eighties, but it was the popularity of the Prayer of Jabez in the late nineties that popularized it, I think.

I won't get into a big debate on the meaning of the Gospels as I think its up to each individual to find God's truth, but I will say that there is a disturbing selfishness in parts of Christianity that has manifested itself through the accumulation of worldly possesions.

There's a disturbing selfishness in parts of every social/demographic/political/racial group that has manifested itself through the accumulation of worldly possessions. If there weren't Christians with the same hang-ups, that would be surprising. Most Christians I know are Christians because they're trying to become like Christ, not because they're already there.

Edit: Oh, and the Prayer of Jabez thing didn't popularize the already existing prosperity movement. It was just another round of the same thing. The prosperity thing seems to surface every ten to fifteen years in evangelical circles. In fact, though I said it's been around since the '80's, that would really just have been my introduction to it. The Jesus People movement of the early '70's was (in large part) an organized response to prosperity theology. Prosperity theology and poverty theology tend to form two legs of the neat little Hegelian dialectical triad that plays itself out every decade or so.

It is also worth noting that other world faiths hold differing attitudes toward the acquisition of wealth and physical comfort/pleasure. Hinduism for instance (and here I am making a gross generalization) sees nothing wrong with the pursuit of physical pleasure in itself. It simply views such pursuit as reflecting an immature view of the world. The idea is that, some point after surrounding yourself with the most sublime physical pleasures, you will notice this nagging feeling of emptiness and discontent.1 At this point, you are ready to begin looking away from things of this world and toward spiritual fulfillment.

1. Or, as some have put it: There comes a time when we must say even of Mozart, even of Shakespeare, "Is that all?"

So, how would they explain Paris Hilton? :)

This is nothing new, consider the history of the phrase "protestant work ethic." Max Weber, anybody?

How do Arabs view it?

Since Arabs are an ethnicity and not a religion, individual Arabs would view as their own faith dictates.

Man, I'm not thinking today. I meant Muslims.

O RLY? And where did God state this? This idiocy is not in the Bible which, last I checked, is the entire basis of the Christian religion. As a matter of fact, it says the opposite a number of times:

Luke 3:11 “John answered, ‘the man with two tunics should share with him who has none, and the one who has food should do the same.’"

Luke 12:33 "Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys."

That's just a few, and there are many others dealing with kindness to the poor. If you are acquiring as much wealth as you can then I am sorry, but you are selectively following Christianity, which is the same as not following it at all.

The Bible says a lot of things.

I eat pork.

In truth, isn't that what nearly all Christians do?

I don't see the problem with a Christian accumulating as much wealth as they can, as long as they proportionally give back via charity, tithing, offering, etc.

Is there something inherently wrong with a Christian being an economic success?

I'm not sure. I know that almsgiving is one of the five pillars of Islam, but my knowlege does not extend beyond that--and that does not really answer the question.

I obtained my knowlege of Hinduism from The World's Religions by Huston Smith:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...62508119&itm=2

I found this to be a very good book to give one an overview of all of the major faith traditions. It is written for the interested layperson. I would "look up" Islam to see if it says anything about poverty/prosperity, but I lent the book to a friend.

Anyway, I imagine that wikipedia, et al. have the answers somewhere.

And, if so, what does "economic success" mean? By the standards of my neighbors, I am average. If, however, you look at the world at large, I am almost unspeakably wealthy.

If I say that being "rich" is incompatible with being a Christian, then I am begging a pretty obvious question.

I actually looked at a page on tithing at the UMC website yesterday, and it had this:

"Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on." (Luke 21:3-4)

Well, in truth, it's what nearly all people of all religions do. For most, religion offers a nice umbrella to group all their own personal feelings and beliefs under.

It's a good point. People who consider wealth or materalism "un-Christian" typically put that threshold somewhere above where their individual status is. When surely, no American can be saved if the bible is taken literally.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding you here.

Right. Obviously, if a poor person gives 70% of their income they contributed more than a rich person who gives their 70%.

Still - maybe I'm not getting it - but I don't see how God would frown on someone being rich.

Are you using the Biblical version of being "saved" here?

Because being "rich" means you have an excess of wealth, whilst other people don't have anything.

Sorry. All I meant was that the next question is "What is 'rich?'"

Being "rich" is when you have enough money to not have to worry about crucial needs (food, shelter, etc), while still having enough left over to spend on luxury items like insanely big plasma TVs, $600 gaming consoles, and ~$200+ nights out on the piss.

If you want to take the bible literally - which I imagine should be the case - then you should be giving that excess cash to those that need it just to be able to survive. I don't think that's particularily realistic or sensible, but there ya go.

Okay - I see. Personally, I don't think being rich and Christian are mutually exclusive. While it's utimately admirable to make $1 million a year and give away all but $20K of it and live in poverty, I don't think it makes you less of a Christian if you choose not to do so.

Perhaps, but we're not talking about all religions here. We're talking about Christianity. I don't understand the uproar about some people not taking parts of the Bible seriously, when virtually no one actually takes many parts of the Bible literally or seriously. Who decided that they get to pick and choose?

Jesus was a Jew

Jesus caused Global Warming.

Beats me.

If I had a dollar for everytime I'd heard/seen a Christian rave on about Jesus' loving, peacefullness I'd be a rich man. Yet Christians seem to forget that the bible has Jesus stating that he did not come for peace but for violence (Matthew 10:34, amongst others), and he in fact actively promotes the killing of non-believers in this chilling passage:

Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

I mean, come on, that's as savage as anything you see in Islamic texts, and I garauntee you that the passage won't get read out at the next church service you attend.

If you are going to take the bible litterally and be a good Christian, then you should be out there slaying all the Jews/Islamics/Buddhists/Shintoists/Scientologists that you can get your hands on apparently, like the Islamics are criticized for.

Because while you are inside your heated apartment building, on your expensive couch, playing Madden 2007 on your xbox 360, someone is outside freezing to death.

Again, this isn't my personal stance on this issue, but this should be the Christian stance if you are going to follow the bible.

You don't take the people by storm by telling them what to do. You win them over by telling them they can do mostly what they want to do anyway. It's a competitive market out there for hearts and minds, you have to go with what's selling these days.

Drop by your local megachurch, praise the big guy a few times, and talk about your blissful future in heaven, and how much you hate the current group of people different than us we've decided to place in the crosshairs. Then pass the plate. For the win.

Well, the Bible was edited by man in the first place (by people from denominations mostly different than those who take the Bible so literally today), and that edit has never really stopped, in a practical sense. Isn’t it at least conceivable (from a Christian’s point of view) that Jesus’ message was tainted by those with their own agendas? The human mind, I think, loves the concepts of all the answers of life being in a single book – pretty much every religion went this route. I’ve never been comfortable (or a believer) of the reality of that.

As for the rich guy thing, it seems that there are as many Christians as there are versions of Christianity.

I don't think this is a call to arms for Christians. I think this is basically a: "all those who do not accept me will feel my Father's wrath on Judgment Day". But, that's just my take...

Way to take dialogue out of context there, sport.

Yup.

I could have written the same thing, but without the subtle humor.

You guys must go to different churches every Sunday than I do.

That's key.

One thing I found interesting about a lot of super-rich, is they are very private in religion. I remember Bill Gates saying once he didn't believe in God.

This is a complete distortion of scripture. The Matthew 10:34 scripture refers to Christ's mission being one that involves tension and the persecution of his followers by the world.

The Luke 19:27 verse is the last verse of a long parable Jesus recited (Luke 19:12-27). The words you quote are the words of an earthly king in the parable spoken to his subjects and regards the failure of one of them to properly use the minas the king had left in his care during his absence. They are in no way Christ actively promoting the killing of non-believers.

Your distortion of the teachings of the Bible are probably comparable to what certain sects of Islam are doing with the Koran. Sadly, it happens with both religions.

On another matter, the "eye of the needle" previously referred to was actually a gate leading into Jersusalem. Camels did pass through that gate, but they had to do so in a kneeling posture. Hence the comparsion to rich people entering the kingdom of heaven -- not impossible, but they have to humble themselves by placing the Lord first.

Regarding the original topic of this thread. The rich man approach has been around for a number of years. Although there are some large congregations involved, they do not represent a growing trend among evangelicals -- indeed, they are frowned upon by most.

Your both exactly right, and that was my entire point. It's very easy to selectively read the bible and find all the passages that support your own views, while ignoring those that are inconvenient. As you say, this is hardly exclusive to Christianity.


By most of whom? I'd say the majority of Christians see no problem with being rich, nor as it conflicting with their beliefs. The devoutest of the devout may, but they don't represent the vast majority of Christians.

This thread demonstrates that these kinds of discussions are not about the initial topic proposed at all, but rather about interpretation and how to interpret. If one takes the reader-response model of interpretation from people like Stanley Fish of Duke, then one certainly can make the Bible say whatever you want it to say. Reader response criticism accepts whatever interpretation the reader gets from the text. Context means little. More power to the bling-bling folks.

However, if you operate within a traditional hermeneutic textual analysis interpretive frame, suddenly the reader response position becomes untenable. Suddenly it's much more difficult for the bling-bling message to gain a hearing because it's not in a text that is interpreted based on a set of interpretive rules. The traditional hermeneutic asks the reader to submit their interpretation to rules involving things like interpreting in context. As an example, Groundhog did not submit to the interpretive rules about submitting one's interpretation to context--a rule Drake subscribes to.

I don't see this as about who is a Christian and who isn't or what Christians should or should not be practicing. Instead, it's more about interpretation and what constitutes sound, acceptable and ethically responsible interpretation. Do we go Groundhog's way or Drake's way? Why do we or should we choose one as opposed to the other?

The bible is the sole source that Christians have regarding Jesus and his teachings, and I don't believe it should be open for individual interpretation. Not by you average Joe, not by your priest, and not by your pope. Who are they to try reinterpret their holy text that was supposed to have been written by Jesus' followers? But then, I'm not a Christian, either, so what I believe should be the case is probably not that important.

If you read Luke 3:11 and Luke 12:33 though, and then interpret this to mean that Jesus was actually just pointing out that it's just easier to accept and rely on God if you're not wealthy, then that is just far too convenient I'm afraid, as those two passages could not be any clearer or more specific. Yet the sacrifices that it would require are so immense that it's just not realistic for the majority of people, Christian or not, and to counter this fact people re-interpret it to make themselves feel better for not following this to the word.

But, knowing how unrealistic it is in today's times to follow these two passages, should that make someone who doesn't "less Christian" than someone who does? I'm of the opinion that it should, but again I'm not a Christian. I'd imagine that the majority of Christians would disagree, or would at the least not consider it the major issue that I do.

If you are going to allow leeway on this issue though, why not others? This is why veering from the text and ignoring parts or blunting their meaning is dangerous, because without even realising it you are reshaping the religion to suit your own interests, and you are no longer following the religion as defined by it's founders.

I don't see how this can be considered sound or acceptable; not from a religious point of view, at least.

That's a really interesting position. Care to elaborate a bit? If the Bible shouldn't be open to individual interpretation, what might interpreting it look like? Who would you say should be interpreting it and how might this play itself out?

Could we also say there's a difference between writing and interpretation?