The Beautiful Heresy- Christian Universalism

Am I a heretic? Maybe. If believing that God is all powerful, all loving, wiser than His creation and perfectly willing and capable of saving all of His children makes me a heretic, sign me up.


synchronicity 
Coincidence of events that seem to be meaningfully related, conceived
in Jungian theory as an explanatory principle on the same order as
causality.
I used to complain that God never talked to me.  Well, no more.  Sometimes God practically shouts at me.  This is what happened through the day yesterday and up until about 4 o'clock this morning.  This article came to me then (when I would really have rather been sleeping).  Later this morning, as I thought about it, I thought it really should be two articles.  But, this is the way this lesson was given to me. So, this is how I'm going to give it to you.

The lesson really started on Sunday (I write this on Wednesday morning).  Much to my surprise something from the sermon really leapt out at me.  It was concerning a definition of sin.  The definition is "anything that obscures the grace of God.".  My immediate thought was "What a sin the teaching of eternal conscious torment is".  But, Dave went on to give a couple of examples I thought were excellent.  He said sin is that attitude that keeps us from thinking we need grace or forgiveness.  But, on the other end of the spectrum, sin is the attitude that won't allow us to accept God's grace because we are "unworthy".  
Yesterday, two parallel events happened.  On one of my message boards someone asked the question "Why are you people who believe in Universalism still scared shitless of going to hell?"  This is a valid question. In fact, it's an excellent question.  We were in the process of discussing a book (that's really not about hell) and he just couldn't understand why we would waste our time on that particular book.  This kicked off a lively and telling discussion. On one side, we had two people who had never feared hell.  One was raised Catholic and thought others were going to hell.  But, he never feared it at all for himself. He had his rituals that made him right with God (Confession, Communion, etc.)   On the other hand he pointed out, even if you're Protestant, it's even easier to avoid hell.  Just pray the "Sinner's Prayer".  Bingo.  You're in once and for all.

The event that happened in parallel with that discussion, was I was listening to a podcast about the Spirituality of Parenting on Speaking of Faith (a Podcast I highly recommend you subscribe to).  That discussion was with a Rabbi (Sandy Sasso)  who was talking about how and why we should nurture our children's spirituality as well as teach them how to read and write and compete and be good little consumers.  I actually wasn't going to listen to the Podcast because I am so far behind on my Podcasts and I thought I had this one pretty much nailed down.  But, something told me to listen to it anyway (as I was deleting a bunch of others)

Back to the discussion on the message board.  What it came down to for me was that I was taught (no brainwashed) at an early age some absolutes to me that were unquestionable. These were:

  • I was bad. 
  • My heart
    was evil and deceptive. 
  • I was covered in the Blood of the Lamb (I'm a very visual person so this image was always a ghastly one for me). 
  • Only because I was smeared in this blood could God even bear to look upon me because this blood covered my sins and my inherent evilness).
  • Only because Jesus had protected me from God would God even think of allowing me into His presence.

All of these messages came through loud and clear to me.  There was some "good news" though.  For some reason the good news didn't seem to come through as clearly.  If I asked sincerely enough and lived a good enough life to show I had been sincere in my asking, I could be saved from God's wrath. Notice the subtle difference from salvation by works.  I was still saved by grace.  But, this life of doing right would be evidence I had been sincere and had truly accepted the grace.  Actually, there were a couple of versions of this.  Some believed that I was accepted in.  But, the acceptance was conditional based on living a life without "backsliding".  I had to do the right things and, more importantly, avoid doing the wrong things.   I had to make sure I "repented" of any sins.  That meant not only confessing but stopping the sinning (any habitual sins were a sure sign of backsliding and led to doom).  The second camp seemed to have better news.  "Once saved, always saved".  Your "salvation" could not be taken away or lost.  Just say the right words (with sincerity) and you were sealed for good.  But, even these guys had a loophole I could slip through right into the pit of Hell.  Once saved, backsliding was a sign that I had not really been saved (kind of like a Catholic annulment- you were never really married).  The only true evidence of being saved was speaking in tongues (which I managed to do- once) and living a life without backsliding. So, I lived my whole life hoping I would die before I could backslide and expose the fact I had never really been saved.  I knew how black and dark my heart was.  I knew, deep inside, that I really didn't love God and that He didn't really love me.  He loved Jesus and Jesus had covered me up. I feared God.  Don't get me wrong. I wanted to love Him.  I wanted to badly.  I cried at night because I wanted to so much.  But, how could I love someone who was willing and able to throw me into Eternal Darkness simply for being who He made me to be?  I couldn't as much as I tried to force myself.

One of the things about our discussion yesterday that was so revealing is that there were others on the board who shared my experience (and in some cases even worse).  One woman had an abusive father who made it quite easy for her to relate to this type of God that Tami described so well:

Yes, and that's why I believe Debra, that kids...especially teens from abusive situations
are sucked in. They recognize the kind of parent that's being described in God. Angry, wrathful, but willing to give grace if you behave properly. And all wrapped up in the the shiny lace and bows of unconditional love. Sad.
This all brought back to mind something my counselor had said to me.  I asked her why after so many years of trying to convince myself that God loved me from reading it in books and listening to tapes and whatever, I still couldn't believe it.  She told me that as children images like this strike us at an emotional level. To counteract these images, we have to be reached at an emotional level.  The way I picture it is this, I have stuffed all this head knowledge into my head about God loving me. Theologically and intellectually I can convince myself of it. But, it's stuck in my brain.  To truly feel it, I need for it to move from my head down into my heart.  This is a long slow journey with many false, starts, leaps forward and occasionally stumbling backward.  Early this morning, as I laid in bed trying to get back to sleep, I thought about how broken I still am. But, the thought came to my mind "I'm not broken by sin.".  Then, Dave's definition came to my mind and I realized I am still broken by sin.  The sin that I can't really accept God's grace because I'm just not worthy.  This doesn't mean I'm not in recovery.  I am.  But, it's still a process of recovery.  I'm not completely healed yet.

Back to the second event.  As I was listening to the Podcast yesterday, it was reinforcing what I had already known.  It's very important for me to give my children a great spiritual foundation. Without stifling them and without trying to give them all my "answers", I have to give them the tools they'll need to explore the world of spirituality and religion.  The rabbi gave some great advice on how to do this (which I won't even try to duplicate here). If you have chlidren, please listen to the Podcast Spirituality of Parenting.


This morning around 3:30 my six year old woke up from a bad dream.  When she has one she just wants one of us to come into her room (she's scared to get out of bed) and comfort her for a minute.
She doesn't want to discuss the dream.  That would give power to it.  She just wants the assurance that
everything's OK and then she falls right back to sleep. Normally she calls for her mother.  If my wife
doesn't hear her, she'll resort to calling for me and after a few calls, I'll finally wake up.  I'm a very
sound sleeper and rarely hear her call until she calls out "Daddy" instead of "Mommy". This morning though, I did hear her call Mommy and I got up with her.


As I went back to bed, I could not get to sleep.  Suddenly, the events from the last three days aligned in my head.  I don't know if this has ever happened to you.  But, it's common with me and I've heard there are scientific studies that back it up. When we sleep things get rearranged in our heads and things
we've taken in during the day are processed so that they make sense. This is why the phrase "sleeping on it" is really more insightful than many of us realize.  Suddenly all the events lined up in perfect order and this song from Crosy, Stills, Nash & Young popped into my head:
You who are on the road
Must have a code that you can live by
And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good bye.

Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by,

And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked, the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you
would cry, So just look at them and sigh and know they love
you.

And you, of tender years,
Can't know the fears that your elders grew by,
And so please help them with your youth,
They seek the truth before they can die.


Teach your parents well,
Their children's hell will slowly go by,
And feed them on your dreams
The one they picked,  the one you'll know by.

Don't you ever ask them why, if they told you, you would cry,
So just look at them and sigh and know they love you.



The most recent book I've read is called Is It Okay To Call God "Mother"?  Considering the Feminine Face of God by Paul R. Smith.  This is one of those books that you might feel you have to hide when you take it out in public.  If people see you reading a book with this title they'll probably think you're some sort of a pagan or feminist or tree-hugging liberal type.  Actually, I could probably be accused of at being at least one of those things.  But, that aside, the book brought up some very interesting points that I'd like to share with you.  And, I'd like to encourage you to read the book.  I think it's definitely worth checking out.

The book was written by a pastor who had been in the pastorate for over 30 years at the time of its writing and who has been a Southern Baptist his whole life.  So, a few surprises there.  One- it was written by a man. Two- it wasn't written by a liberal theologian.  And three- it was written by a Southern Baptist- not exactly a denomination known for its progressiveness.  But, Pastor Smith has led (or participated with) his church through several major renewals; just one of which was considering whether it was appropriate to continue to refer to God in exclusively male terms.       

Just the question in the title of the book will be enough to get some people up in arms.  Why even ask the question?  Actually, as I began reading the book, the question that came to my mind was "Is It Important To Call God Mother?"  Let's face it.  It's a deeply, deeply rooted tradition to call God Father and refer to God in exclusively male terms.  Why mess with what works?  If it's not important to call God Mother then the answer to the question as to whether we should call God Mother is "no".  There is no point in making a major change that is bound to cause divisiveness with no good reason.  If you want to privately refer to God as Mother, that's your deal.  But, why should we even consider so radical a change publicly?

I'm going to review/outline the book here (with the hopes you'll read it) and also add my own thoughts on the subject.  Something Pastor Smith said toward the end of the book really struck home with me. That is that we often experience that we need to make a change in our perspective as an intuition first and the rational comes along later.  For me, this is definitely the case.  As I thought about the distance I felt from God a few years ago and really tried to come to grips with God truly loving me and being delighted with me, something just seemed wrong.  One of the things that was was wrong was my hyper-masculine image of God.  I just couldn't picture a hyper-macho God truly delighting in me, loving me, embracing me, me climbing up into His lap.  None of these images worked in my mind.   I got a book called Father's Love Letter which pulls scriptures and arranges them in such a way as to create a love letter from God to us.  It's a great book, which I highly recommend and it did help with some healing.  But, if it has been called Mother's Love Letter it would have helped even more.  I can picture my mother writing me a love letter, I cannot picture my father writing one.

When I started reading the book, a couple of buddies teased me about it.  They both thought I was crazy for even considering such an idea.  "Didn't Jesus call God Father?"  "Is there anything in scripture to back this up?" , etc.  But, when I asked them if they thought God was a man, they said "No".  If you asked people if God has a penis (if you could get up the nerve), they'd say "No".  The point is, we know that God is not corporeal and I think most of us intellectually realize God is not male.  But, since God is personal and since we associate gender with anything personal, we just about exclusively refer to God as male.  This presents some serious problems.  The point of this book (and this post) is not that God is female.  The point is not that God is Mother instead of a Father. The point is that God is not exclusively male and that by referring to Her that way, we are doing ourselves a disservice.  We have an distorted and incomplete view of God that is perpetuated by this practice.

Pastor Smith begins by talking about sexism on Sunday morning.  The faces we see before us (in most churches) are mostly male, if not exclusively male.  The hymns are sung to the Father, King, Master, etc.  All exclusively male terms.  The prayers are to a great big male figure.  Those of us who were raised in the church are so used to this that most of us are blind to it.  But, for those coming in from the outside where women have become more equal to men, this can be an experience that is so uncomfortable that it hinders their ability to worship. The fact that we think of God as male says, unconsciously or consciously, that men are more like God than women.  And, if men are more like God than women and God is the ultimate good, this can only mean one thing.  Men are better than women.  This is a sexist message that has no place in Christianity where there is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek.

One powerful and common argument for referring to God as male is the Bible exclusively refers to God as a male.  However, this is not true. There are several (I almost said many- that might be a stretch) feminine images of God in the Bible.  God's Shekinah Glory or Wisdom is referred to in the feminine.  God is compared to a she-bear.  Jesus quotes an Old Testament verse about taking Jerusalem under His wing, as a mother hen would.  We know that when God is referred to as a shield, rock, fortress, tower, etc. these are metaphors.  Why do we assume that when God is referred to as Father, this is a true reflection of God's gender?  Language has changed over the years. First of all, the Bible was written by a patriarchal society.  To refer to God as Mother would have reduced His power and authority because women had none at that time.  Women were considered on the same level as children. They were not considered as reliable witnesses.  They were considered intellectually inferior, unclean and even evil by some.  Despite this (miraculously), we do at least have some feminine images of God.  But, we don't have a lot of them and we shouldn't expect to given the times.  Also, the use of masculine pronouns was, until recently, considered to be inclusive of women. This has changed now though as we have realized how unfair and degrading this is to women.  But, we have not changed this practice when it comes to how we refer to God or even how we refer to each other often.  Women are still largely excluded when it comes to the language in our hymns, our prayers and our Bibles.  Frankly, until I read this book, this would have probably gotten a big "So what?" from me.  But, I now realize this subtle devaluing of women and the feminine has a big impact- not only on women only.  But, also on men.

OK. So maybe it's not a bad idea.  But, is it Biblical?
I know that there are people who wouldn't even consider making such a change unless it's "biblical".  I'm not one of those people.  But, I think it would be silly to ignore that POV.  One of the strongest verses supporting the feminine image of God is found right there at the beginning of the Bible   

Genesis 1:27 says (Young's Literal Translation)
YLT:  And God prepareth the man in His image in the image of God He prepared him, male and female He prepared them.

Go ahead.  Look it up in any translation you like.  This one is hard to screw up.  God created mankind in God's image- male and female.
Another verse that is commonly used to put women in their place has been so abused it's simply amazing.  People say that Adam is in charge and Eve is Adam's helper (kind of like Adam's gopher).  Genesis 2:18 says:
YLT:  And Jehovah God saith,'Not good for the man to be alone, I do make to him an helper--as his counterpart.'
Now, this is a verse that is easily screwed up in the translation;  and  it has been.  The key to understanding it lies in one little word and it's a word that doesn't translate well into English.  The word is Ezer.  Pastor Smith points out that Ezer is used 21 times in Torah (Old Testament). Twice it refers to Eve.  Three times it speaks of crucial help provided by other persons. But, sixteen times it refers to God Herself where God comes to the aid of human beings.  Psalms 70:5 is just one such example.  Ezer is strong helper, even a divine helper- not an inferior one.  God is the Ezer to humanity and Eve is the ezer to Adam.

Another strong Biblical reason for referring to God in the feminine is the word Elohim. This word has puzzled theologians for centuries.  Most Christians say we're strict monotheists (even though Jews and Muslims would disagree).  But, Elohim is a plural word.

There are examples in the Old Testament of the "womb of God".  You can't get more feminine imagery than womb.  Thinking of God as the one who gives me birth rather than as a father makes God seem seem much closer to me.  I think most people would agree there is a bond between a mother and daughter or son that is special because the child literally comes forth out of the mother.  El Shaddai is another term for God that ties to breasts.  God is compared to a nursing mother.  You'll have to get the book for all of the details.  But, Chapter 2 is full of examples of feminine imagery in the Old Testament.  Chapter 3 covers the objection many people give that Jesus called God Father, not Mother.  There were very good reasons why it would have simply been too much for a patriarchal society like Jerusalem was at the time to bear such a radical teaching.  However, Jesus treated women and children with much, much more respect and tenderness than was common at the time.  Jesus Himself said there was much that He had to tell us that we could not bear at the time. We expect the Holy Spirit to continue to reveal things to us.  We no longer use the Bible as an excuse for slavery or racism. Should we continue to use it as an excuse for sexism?

Why It's Important to Call God Mother


Chapter 5 was the Chapter I had been waiting for.  It comes about half way through the book.  As I said earlier, if it's not important to call God Mother, why bother?  There's a great quote from a little girl's letter to God that really struck me, especially since I have two girls:

Dear God,
Are boys better than girls?
I know you are one,
but try to be fair
- Sylvia

I don't know that I need to say a lot more about this.  I think either you'll get it or you won't.  For me, personally though there's an even more pressing reason to call God Mother.  I mentioned earlier that a couple of buddies gave me a hard time about even reading this book. Ironically, both of these guys have issues with their fathers and struggle with knowing (a heart knowing) that God really loves them and God delights in them. I do too.  I wonder if that might be because they project the image of their broken earthly fathers on to their image of Father-God.  I know that is the case with me. A father is stern, compelling, motivating.  But, a father is not loving, tender.  A father's love is conditional.  But, a mother is encouraging, nourishing, tender.  A mother's love is unconditional.  If we had had a more feminine (or balanced) image of God, would we have come up with the doctrine of Eternal Torment?  What mother would throw her children away because they misbehaved?  It's almost unthinkable.
I think for a lot of men, calling God "Father" as a Son has spiritual significance. For men who can picture a great  father/son relationship because of the relationship they had with their dads, this might work OK.  And, if ain't broke, don't fix it.  But, you know what, we already have permission to do that.  How would it be for a woman to have permission to call God Mother as a Daughter?  How huge woud that be?  Or for a man who had a pretty deep father wound (to use Eldredge's terminology) to be able to call God Mother?  I know for me, that brings a whole new level of closeness I could never feel with a father.

I know I'm talking stereotypes here.  There are tender, compassionate 
fathers and there are lousy mothers.  But, we're also stereotyping when 
we project "masculine" traits onto God. We all know God doesn't have a
 body.  We know God doesn't have testicles or a penis.  OTOH, we also know
 God doesn't have breasts or a womb.  But, if we're going to talk about 
the masculine traits of God and the Bible tells us She created humanity
 in Her image- male and female, why do we take such an unbalanced
 approach to talking about God?

One other thought I had after completing the first edition of the article.  Jesus called God Abba.  That can have several meanings in Hebrew from the first thing a child calls a father (like Daddy or Dadda).  I love it when my daughter calls me Dadda even more than when she calls me Daddy) Abba is also people could use for their father right up through adulthood.  But, we don't call God Daddy, we call Him Father.  That's so formal.  As distant as my relationship with my father is/was, at least I called him Daddy and now call him Dad.  What about if we just called God Dad or Daddy every once in a while?  Father seems very cold to me.

Some people think that because Jesus was male, God must be male.  I think this is extremely flawed logic. Jesus had brown hair (probably and spoke Aramaic).  Jesus probably had a beard.  Jesus was a Jew.  We don't attribute any of these traits to God. Jesus, to be human, had to be a man or a woman.  A woman at that time wouldn't have gotten the platform necessary to deliver the message Jesus came to deliver.  Actually because Jesus was a male is even more reason why we need female imagery of God, to balance our picture out.

Last point- this is getting long- Sexism in the church hinders evangelism.  While the church should never be driven solely by culture it's foolish to ignore culture. Culture does influence what we do (look at all of the marketing done by the modern church).   The culture around us is moving beyond sexism and demanding women be treated as equals and that inclusive language is used. If we ignore that, we run the risk of alienating not only women but enlightened men.

Have I Convinced You?
Maybe I haven't convinced you that God is a woman (that wasn't my goal).  Hopefully I have convinced you to at least explore this a little more and consider it. Maybe you'll even get the book.  If you are ready to begin doing some actual things to get others to consider this, you can do what I'm doing.  One of the things I really liked about Pastor Smith's advice is don't expect this to be an overnight thing.  He said it took him years to get used to some of these things.
  1. First I have just about completely eliminated masculine pronouns from my speech and from my writings about God.  This is fairly easy and somewhat difficult.  It makes for some awkward sentence structures as I use God over and over again instead of using "He".   I'll use God's instead of "His" and Godself instead of Himself.  This is a good first step, IMO. I don't know if others have even noticed. But, it's a great reminder to me.
  2. Second, I have started to trying to imagine God as Mother.  I've nibbled at praying to God as Mother rather than Father.  It's still very uncomfortable. But, I like the idea of snuggling up to Mother God much more than crawling up into Father God's lap.
  3. Maybe start to sneak a few feminine pronouns in for God.  See how people react.  Begin by doing it in places where you are very comfortable.
  4. Spread the word.  Get the book.  Encourage others to get the book.  There are other books as well.  Talk to people about it. Ask them what they think.  Have they even considered it?  What would it mean to them to think of God as female instead of as male (or in addition to being male)?
  5. As you get comfortable, approach your church leadership about at least cutting back on all the male imagery in the hymns and prayers. Maybe they could start to use some inclusive language (some suggestions are in the book).
That's it. I got this book on a whim, a nudge or whatever and I think it's really going to make a big impact on my relationship with my heavenly Mother.  If this article helps you, in any way, that's a double blessing.

Peace,
Brian


Just a couple of days ago I posted an article explaining why I am a liberal Christian.  I've also been engaged in a debate on one of my boards as to which system is more moral, communism or capitalism.  I'm just not comfortable with the large gap between the have and the have nots we have.  Capitalism works well because it's based on people's basic instinct of working for reward and for wanting the best for ourselves.  You can't argue with the success of capitalism and consumerism when it comes to creating a robust productive economy.  Communism doesn't work.  When people are not accountable for their actions, they don't perform. Take away incentive and people stop working.  That's why communism doesn't work.  Capitalism is an every man for himself kind of system.  Without checks from a central authority (read government), capitalism can result in a system where the less privileged are left behind and even exploited.  I think a little "wealth distribution" is required.  But, how much is enough?

I've been pretty critical of the way we treat the poor in America. 
Given the riches that most of us enjoy, I've said it's shameful that we
allow so many to live in poverty. Just a couple of days ago the census
bureau released a report
that showed the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting
poorer. I was appalled.   However, someone recently pointed out to me that it's easy to
criticize what we do for the poor, if we have no good definition of
what poor is or what basic level of living we think we agree that we should provide
for everyone. He also pointed out something that I really hadn't
thought about.  Poverty is relative.  What we call the working poor in
America would be rich in other parts of the world (in many other parts of
the world). According to the Census Bureau's numbers, the poverty level for a family of four in America is roughly $20,000.  I think we'd all agree that living on $20,000 for a family of four would be a very difficult situation (that's an understatement).  But, compare that to the annual per capita (per person) income of several countries.
  • Burundi $88.82 
  • 
Eritrea $145.39
  • 
Ethiopia $91.37 
  • 
Tajikistan $153.77

Of course these are extreme cases.  But, check out this table of the per capita incomes of several nations. If you put our poverty level of around $20,000 on this chart, it far surpasses the average incomes of some places that I bet would surprise you.  Our poverty level is more than the average person in the world makes. 
I was watching 30 Days the other day and there was a family of illegal immigrants from Mexico on.  You might wonder why people would cross the border and give up everything to live in crowded apartments with no chances of getting a good job, working as illegal day laborers and selling aluminum cans to make a living.  When the guy who was doing the 30 Days went to see their former home in Mexico (basically a hut in the middle of a field with no running water, no electricity and a disgusting looking well several hundred yards away), he immediately understood.  In comparison to where they came from, these people were living like kings.

Something to consider when we're talking about the plight of the poor in this country is access to the basics like shelter, food, sanitation and water.   Honestly, no one in America is completely without access to any of these basics.  In other countries, people are truly homeless, living in cardboard boxes or on top of trash dumps.  In America, most of the people who are truly homeless (living without shelter) are mentally ill and we cannot force them into shelters until they are a threat to themselves or others.   People who want to find a bed can. There is free food available to people who truly need it. People might not get what they want or as much as they want. But, we do not allow people to starve to death. However, around the world 30,000 children die a day from starvation, starvation related diseases and lack of clean water.  That's one every 3 seconds.  Diarrhea kills millions of children a year.  Sanitation is something we take for granted.  Every day about 1/2 of the number of children included in the 30,000 number above die from the lack of something as simple as clean water.  Health care is another concern for the poor.  We don't have a great national health care system for the uninsured (which is a very scary thing).  But, again, even though the poor have a higher death rate and don't have great access to well care, no one that goes to a hospital is turned away for lack of money.  We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on single patients to keep them alive.

I was chatting with someone the other day who pointed out his sister is not able to work because she is mentally ill.  He pointed out how close his sister was to not having access to shelter, food, medicine and health care.  Her medications alone would be $700/month.  But, there is a program that allows her to get them for $12.00/month.  He said she would be without shelter, but the family helps pay her rent.  He said she could be without health care, but she just got on the State health plan.  The bottom line is she does have the basics.  He pointed out she does not have Internet access though or the money to go to movies though and that life as a poor person still sucks.

I agree.  Life as a poor person sucks.  But, my question is "Just what are the basics?" I think we'd all agree that everyone should have access to food, clean water, shelter, clothing and medical care.  But, what type of shelter?  A house?  An apartment?  What type of food?  Should poor people be subsidized so that they can enjoy an evening at a restaurant?  How about entertainment?  Is Netflix a bare necessity that we should provide to everyone?

I don't ask these questions to be facetious.  As long as we have an incentive based system, there is going to be a gap between the have and the have nots.  I long for the things that the next tier up from me can afford and I cannot.  There are things I want to do that I cannot afford.  There are things I'd like to give my children that I cannot give to them. Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. I have a great life.  But, there's always more I'll want and there will always be people who have so much more than I do.  So, the question is not if there will be gaps between the classes but how large of a gap is humane and how large of a gap are we comfortable with?

Bottom line to me when I put America in perspective with the rest of the world is this.  Things are not as bad as they could be for the poor.  But, perhaps they're not as good as they should be.

What do you think?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)