How much are you worth ?

So was mine. And/or feetlebum.

Grannytwice My dad was a socialist, a very devout Methodist.

I do think the non hirearchical ways of the Methodist church I attended are deeply entrenched in my psyche even though I am not a believer.

We dont mix church with politics at our church, and a good job too. I would leave if it did that.
God doesnt care whether you are rich, poor, what job you have, what education you have or have not. In fact, it says somewhere, that not many who are rich will enter the kingdom of heaven.
I cant tell from your post, whether you will think that good or bad.

Do you think that there are lots of wealthy christians? Not as far as I know.
[I used the word christians]. Again, I am not sure if you think that good or bad.

Ana - my version gave God a bit more credit. If we are talking about religion and the worth it bestows upon individuals, there is no way it can be a politics free zone. My parents were non- conformists, not sure which kind, but the whole issue of the development of the non- conformists and politics is absolutely fascinating. In general they were not Conservatives and were very much in opposition to the stranglehold that the Cof E held over so many institutions in the 19th century- I think I remember at one stage you couldn't join the civil service without being a member of the CofE. But my overall point was that there was a conspiracy of both capitalism and the Anglican church to persuade the poor to accept their role in life as God given and therefore not to question and revolt. The non conformists brought a more questioning view to that idea of a pre ordained status and a belief that whilst the next life was going to be all very well, Man (sic) had a role to play in making this life a bit more tolerable - in fact, more than a role, a duty.Bit cheeky really questioning divine ordination. The CofE was eventually much improved by the influence of non conformity

I'll leave Ana to answer GT's post. I dont anything about the christian church back further that the mif 1800's. And even then, little.

Nelliemoser. Yes, methodism is very democratic indeed. Majority vote on lots of things at grass root level. It makes it all a bit long winded and cumbersome at times, but never mind.

Just out of interest, I googled the writer of 'All things Bright and Beautiful'. She also wrote a number of other memorable hymns.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Frances_Alexander

(straying off-topic, I know, but I thought it worth posting)

I cannot see that being taught that everyone as equal can possibly lead to accepting the social order suggested in 'All things bright and beautiful'. The effect on me was just the opposite, it seemed to me, at a very young age, that if you accepted that you couldn't possibly accept any system, class or caste, that put people in little boxes and kept them there.

My own family circumstances proved just the opposite. My illegitimate Irish Catholic grandfather grew up in desperate poverty in Northern Ireland, enlisted in the Royal Artillery in 1901 and rose through the ranks, was commissioned as an officer and retired having reached the rank of major and was awarded an OBE.

How can religion, particularly Christianity be anything other than political? Not party political, I agree, but in recent years the CofE has, for example, spoken out against the way many families have been affected by the bedroom tax, the way many of the poorest have had their benefits cut as a sanction for not meeting inhuman and sometimes impossible job hunting and training demands from DWP officials, the behaviour of banks and many other social issues. All these issues and others have been approached in a non-partisan way and governments on both sides have been irritated and defensive by comments from church leaders of many Christian and other denominations.

That verse is never sung in church these days.

Good post Flick. The CofE is a much better institution now than when it was 'the Tory party at prayer' and shored up a whole range of wicked exploitations including slavery. Any society is healthier when there is a tension between church and state - look at the continuing problems in Ireland where the influence of the church over the state is anything but healthy or conducive to real democracy and freedom. I'm not being anti religion - just making the point that when the church and the state are hand in glove, the more disadvantaged and powerless will continue to remain so.

It doesn't matter that it's not sung now - we are discussing what it meant when it was and how wrong that was.

Wow gillybob I agree you are priceless. You are obviously a giving person.

pompa I respectfully disagree that money brings dis content. Money gives you a feeling of security, it gives you choices, it gives you quality of life. For eg, if I had a bit more money I could buy myself a car and that would bring me much happiness, if I had more money I could go to a private dentist instead of an NHS dentist, etc etc etcg

People that say money does not bring contentment are usually people that have lots of the stuff��

How can religion, particularly Christianity be anything other than political

Because it should be about what is inside an individual, not what is outside.
It is about self improvement. Our sin, as described by the bible.

People do not go to church to learn how to change things politically.
Perhaps we are disagreeing on what the word political means?

I am surprised by how much some posters see the world in merely political terms.
As far as I know, the general population of the UK does not?

I am out later, so please,no one, dont take it personally if I dont reply for a while.
I will probably be back on this evening.

'All things bright and beautiful' is very old-fashioned but the point of the whole hymn is to celebrate God's creation, including people. I've always assumed that the verse people have taken exception to was referring to the story of Dives and Lazarus and we all know how that ends, don't we? And the idea that we are all equal and valued by God underlay much of the benevolent activism of the 18th and 19th centuries and hospitals, schools, care for the poor, throughout its history. One of the reasons Christianity has been and is being suppressed over 2000 years is that it is subversive and encourages questioning and alliance with the disadvantaged.

But in case you don't know the story of Dives and Lazarus, here is a link en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_man_and_Lazarus. There is a Christmas Carol as well.

Monetary wealth on it's own can of course make life easier but I don't believe it can bring contentment on it's own to most people. All the money in the world would be worth nothing to me if I didn't have love and friendship in my life.

Didn't someone once say ' I've been rich and miserable and poor and miserable- rich is better'. But seriously, whilst it's true that money can't bring love and happiness , I agree with Parcs that it can bring security and contentment which means a better quality of life. Grinding, continual poverty with fear of eviction, worry about paying for fuel and food, health care and education ( in some countries) does nothing to nourish the soul ( whatever that means) or lay the foundation for contentment. Even if you stay above the breadline , there can be that nagging worry at the back of your mind about what happens if the washing machine breaks down, the overtime at work is reduced. As I've said elsewhere I was brought up in a community with endemic poverty and deprivation and saw first hand the corrosive effects of that on prople and relationships.

Lily - I wish I could stay and debate this but I have to get ready for visitors and shift a mountain of paperwork but I think you are presenting a very sanitised view of Christianity through the ages. Christianity has often been a source of corruption, greed, suppression and has shored up disadvantage and inequality - for those Christians fighting this ( usually non conformists and especially Quakers) , there have been many, especially in state/established Churches supporting regimes and issues that we now ( most of us) think of as pure evil - such as slavery and apartheid . I have views as well on the current position on abortion of the RC church and how in Ireland and some South/Central American countries women and young girls die and/ or suffer horribly because of the power of the church on the legislative. I would also argue that the Christian church has not ( and clearly does not in some of its manifestations) encourage questioning - far from it. Think of the Inquisition, Mary and Elizabeth Tudor. I could go on but must go. To sum up, some Christians at some times have fought for the poor and dispossessed and other Christians at other times have supported, shored up and even led the fight against attempts to better the lot of the poor and disadvantaged . Christianity IMO has no claim to any high moral ground in this area ( I am speaking globally and historically here so it is a bit of a broad brush)

I thought that Christ said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it was for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven. (and I know the eye etc was a gate into the city) so isn't that supposed to be a basic belief of Christianity? That being rich isn't a good thing and to value money for itself isn't good for a person's soul? That's certainly the reason we see so much philanthropy in Victorian times- they were a bit worried about what would happen when they passed on. These days of course there isn't the pressure of religion on most rich people, and of course there is so much more to spend your money on houses, yachts, fast cars. Someone said "The rich are different to us" and received the reply "Yes they have more money." Anyone know who it was?

Wasn't it F Scott Fitzgerald?

That sounds right. Thanks!

Soontobe Perhaps changing what is inside us also includes beginning (if we have not done so before) thinking about the unfair disadvantages that others have? Improving those is often more than personal action in giving or helping, it involves trying to change the things that make them disadvantaged.

People like Josephine Butler and William Wilberforce could have been said to be acting politically when they fought for change - and they achieved it.