In Keister’s article, (p. 1266), she concludes, “CPs [Conservative Protestants] accept that material possessions belong to God and people are managers of those possessions. I showed that, as a result, CPs tend to seek divine guidance in making important decisions, avoid excess accumulation, and favor using money to support religion.”
However, she also admits several clear contradictions to this conclusion among other religions (Orthadox Jews, Roman Catholic, Mormons) which share these basic beliefs about people being stewards of resources granted from God, yet (or therefore?) also value education and work, and tend to accumulate wealth. She states on p. 1265, in her conclustion:
“There is evidence that unique values regarding work and money, combined with amenable demographic behaviors (e.g., educational attainment, stable marriage, and high female labor force participation), allowed Roman Catholics to be upwardly mobile in the wealth distribution in recent decades. However, we know little about the practices that lead some religious groups to accumulate relatively high-value wealth portfolios. For example, Mormons tend to be religiously conservative, but there is little evidence that they are asset poor. Contrasting Mormons with other CPs might provide useful insight into the values that affect saving behavior and wealth ownership.”
Yet, Kaister offers no explanation for these direct contradictions to her hypothesis. Roman Catholics, conservative Jews, and Mormons believe strongly that “material possessions belong to God and people are managers of those possessions,” yet also accumulated wealth. She has merely found one subset of protestent denominations that tends to be poor.
In her haste to conclude that conservative religious teachings lead to poverty, she has also perhaps also forgotten another key teaching about money from the Bible in Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). Here Jesus strongly advocates hard work, savings, and even wealth accumulation, praising the servants who have doubled their money with wise investments: “Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.” This chapter directly follows a similar story about the 10 virgins which advocates savings and preparation.
Wouldn’t one expect conservative religions who believe the Bible to be the Word of God to also teach this parable?
Without explanations for the wealth accumulation of other religious groups which also believe avidly in tithing and stewardship, I submit Kaister’s study is simply yet another confirmation that education level and socioecomonic status are strongly associated with wealth. In order to conclude that a belief in God’s stewardship of money leads to poverty, she would need to show how other groups with the similar beliefs are also poor. Even she admits that she has clearly not done this.
Post Script:
I’m reminded of numerous examples of Biblical heroes who were blessed with astounding wealth because of their obedience to God. What about Abraham, Isaac, Joseph—who saved Egypt from famine, Job, David, and Solomon? All of these are central figures to the biblical narrative who are noted for their wealth.
Do conservative protestant groups in Keister’s study ignore these noted examples while repeatedly quoting only the last half of a verse from The Proverbs of Solomon (see above): “The love of money is the root of all evil?”
If the Bible is the primary text of reference for these denominations, I again wonder if something else is going on as a predictor of poverty other than a portion of their teachings about money.
COMMENTS
BY Varden Hadfield
ON June 27, 2008 01:46 PM
In Keister’s article, (p. 1266), she concludes, “CPs [Conservative Protestants] accept that material possessions belong to God and people are managers of those possessions. I showed that, as a result, CPs tend to seek divine guidance in making important decisions, avoid excess accumulation, and favor using money to support religion.”
However, she also admits several clear contradictions to this conclusion among other religions (Orthadox Jews, Roman Catholic, Mormons) which share these basic beliefs about people being stewards of resources granted from God, yet (or therefore?) also value education and work, and tend to accumulate wealth. She states on p. 1265, in her conclustion:
“There is evidence that unique values regarding work and money, combined with amenable demographic behaviors (e.g., educational attainment, stable marriage, and high female labor force participation), allowed Roman Catholics to be upwardly mobile in the wealth distribution in recent decades. However, we know little about the practices that lead some religious groups to accumulate relatively high-value wealth portfolios. For example, Mormons tend to be religiously conservative, but there is little evidence that they are asset poor. Contrasting Mormons with other CPs might provide useful insight into the values that affect saving behavior and wealth ownership.”
Yet, Kaister offers no explanation for these direct contradictions to her hypothesis. Roman Catholics, conservative Jews, and Mormons believe strongly that “material possessions belong to God and people are managers of those possessions,” yet also accumulated wealth. She has merely found one subset of protestent denominations that tends to be poor.
In her haste to conclude that conservative religious teachings lead to poverty, she has also perhaps also forgotten another key teaching about money from the Bible in Jesus’ parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14-30). Here Jesus strongly advocates hard work, savings, and even wealth accumulation, praising the servants who have doubled their money with wise investments: “Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.” This chapter directly follows a similar story about the 10 virgins which advocates savings and preparation.
Wouldn’t one expect conservative religions who believe the Bible to be the Word of God to also teach this parable?
Without explanations for the wealth accumulation of other religious groups which also believe avidly in tithing and stewardship, I submit Kaister’s study is simply yet another confirmation that education level and socioecomonic status are strongly associated with wealth. In order to conclude that a belief in God’s stewardship of money leads to poverty, she would need to show how other groups with the similar beliefs are also poor. Even she admits that she has clearly not done this.
BY Varden Hadfield
ON June 30, 2008 03:04 PM
Post Script:
I’m reminded of numerous examples of Biblical heroes who were blessed with astounding wealth because of their obedience to God. What about Abraham, Isaac, Joseph—who saved Egypt from famine, Job, David, and Solomon? All of these are central figures to the biblical narrative who are noted for their wealth.
Do conservative protestant groups in Keister’s study ignore these noted examples while repeatedly quoting only the last half of a verse from The Proverbs of Solomon (see above): “The love of money is the root of all evil?”
If the Bible is the primary text of reference for these denominations, I again wonder if something else is going on as a predictor of poverty other than a portion of their teachings about money.