Posted by: Christian Beyer | January 5, 2009

Prosperity Gospel of Another Sort

Russell H. Conwell (February 15, 1843 – December 6, 1925) was the founder of Temple University. He was a Baptist minister,  a lawyer and well known for his speeches and sermons, the most famous of which also became a popular book of the same name;  Acres of Diamonds. The title is in reference to a man who spent all his life looking for fortune, never realizing that the property he sold to finance his travels would later be the site of the Kimberly diamond field.

Preaching this sermon over six thousand times (which reputedly earned him over $8,000,000 dollars), Conwell greatly influenced the Social Gospel that was emerging during the Gilded Age and this speech was  said to have such a significant and lasting impact upon American politics that it can still be felt today.  I found the it to be fascinating and present it here with no additional commentary:

I say that you ought to get rich, and it is your duty to get rich. How many of my pious brethren say to me, “Do you, a Christian minister, spend your time going up and down the country advising young people to get rich, to get money?” “Yes, of course I do.” They say, “Isn’t that awful! Why don’t you preach the gospel instead of preaching about man’s making money?” “Because to make money honestly is to preach the gospel:’ That is the reason. The men who get rich may be the most honest men you can find in the community.

“Oh”, but says some young man here tonight, “I have been told all my life that if a person has money he is very dishonest and dishonorable and mean and contemptible:’ My friend, that is the reason why you have none, because you have that idea of people. The foundation of your faith is altogether false. Let me say here clearly, and say it briefly, though subject to discussion which I have not time for here, ninety-eight out of one hundred of the rich men of America are honest. That is why they are rich. That is why they are trusted with money. That is why they carryon great enterprises and find plenty of people to work with them. It is because they are honest men.

Says another young man, “I hear sometimes of men that get millions of dollars dishonestly” Yes, of course you do, and so do I. But they are so rare a thing in fact that the newspapers talk about them all the time as a matter of news until you get the idea that all the other rich men got rich dishonestly.

My friend, you take and drive me – if you furnish the auto – out into the suburbs of Philadelphia, and introduce me to the people who own their homes around this great city, those beautiful homes with gardens and flowers, those magnificent homes so lovely in their art, and I will introduce you to the very best people in character as well as in enterprise in our city, and you know I will. A man is not really a true man until he owns his own home, and they that own their homes are made more honorable and honest and pure, and true and economical, by owning the home.

For a man to have money, even in large sums, is not an inconsistent thing. We preach against covetousness, and you know we do, in the pulpit, and oftentimes preach against it so long and use the terms about “filthy lucre” so extremely that Christians get the idea that when we stand in the pulpit we believe it is wicked for any man to have money-until the collection basket goes around, and then we almost swear at the people because they don’t give more money. Oh, the inconsistency of such doctrines as that!.

Money is power, and you ought to be reasonably ambitious to have it. You ought because you can do more good with it than you could do without it. Money printed your Bible, money builds your churches, money sends your missionaries, and money pays your preachers, and you would not have many of them, either, if you did not pay them. I am always willing that my church should raise my salary, because the church that pays the largest salary always raises it the easiest. You never knew an exception to it in your life. The man who gets the largest salary can do the most good with the power that is furnished to him. Of course he can, if his spirit be right to use it for what it is given to him.

I say, then, you ought to have money. If you can honestly attain unto riches in Philadelphia, it is your Christian and godly duty to do so. It is an awful mistake of those pious people to think you must be awfully poor in order to be pious.

Some men say, “Don’t you sympathize with the poor people?” Of course I do, or else I would not have been lecturing these years. I won’t give in but what I sympathize with the poor, but the number of poor who are to be sympathized with is very small. To sympathize with a man whom God has punished for his sins, thus to help him when God would still continue a just punishment, is to do wrong, no doubt about it, and we do that more than we help those who are deserving.

While we should sympathize with God’s poor-that is, those who cannot help themselves – let us remember there is not a poor person in the United States who was not made poor by his own shortcomings, or by the short-comings of someone else. It is all wrong to be poor, anyhow. Let us give in to that argument and pass that to one side.

A gentleman gets up back there, and says, “Don’t you think there are some things in this world that are better than money?” Of course I do, but I am talking about money now. Oh yes, I know by the grave that has left me standing alone that there are some things in the world that are higher and sweeter and purer than money. Well do I know there are some things higher and grander than gold. Love is the grandest thing on God’s earth, but fortunate the lover who has plenty of money. Money is power, money is force, money will do good, as well as harm. In the hands of good men and women it could accomplish, and it has accomplished, good.

I hate to leave that behind me. I heard a man get up in a prayer-meeting in our city and thank the Lord he was “one of God’s poor.” Well, I wonder what his wife thinks about that? She earns all the money that comes into that house, and he smokes a part of that on the veranda. I don’t want to see any more of the Lord’s poor of that kind, and I don’t believe the Lord does. And yet there are some people who think in order to be pious you must be awfully poor and awfully dirty. That does not follow at all. While we sympathize with the poor, let us not teach a doctrine like that.

-Russell H. Conwell


Responses

  1. Not much has changed, has it?

  2. I think the difference is that in this context, money comes through hard work–in modern “faith” preaching, Copeland, et., al are preaching a cosmic principle (not unlike Oprah Winfrey’s Vision Board) in which faith in a desired end brings the end.

  3. Yeah, Mark. Not too much has changed. But on the other hand quite a bit has changed. There are many elements of this speech that make perfect sense to me. But generally speaking, I think it is fundamentally at odds with the Gospel.

    Bruce, I never really thought it had too much in common with the current prosperity gospel, I was just looking for a catchy title. However, in both situations there is the implication that those who are not wealthy are not in some way as ‘right with God’ as they could be. I’ve heard plenty of folks attribute their prosperity to the fact that they are living according to God’s plan for them and that because of this God has ‘prospered’ (ugh!) them. The false assumption is that there is such a thing as a ‘level’ playing field.

  4. I definitely agree with both of you. That is kind of what I meant. Regardless of the means by which you get there there will always be those that think God is their own personal wealth machine.

    Christian, I know exactly what you mean with your last statement. I know someone (in the family) who recently bought a very nice and very big home. They will quickly tell anyone who will listen how the new house is God’s blessing to them for being ‘faithful’. Of course to this person being faithful is all about church attendance and giving tithes.

    Here is what I said to them. So that must mean that all those Christians in third world countries must be the worst Christians ever because many of them live in conditions hundreds of times worse than you.

    Guess what the reply was?

    “That’s different, they receive their blessing in relation to the culture they live in.”

    I just dropped it because I knew there was no more point arguing. I guess we are entitled to better blessings because we live in America. USA! USA!

  5. That response they gave is just another version of that tired old canard “Since they do not know anything different then their happiness is relative”. In other words, if abject poverty is all they know then an ice cream cone is an indescribable luxury or if they have always lived with few freedoms then to find any privacy at all, no matter how fleeting, is a wonderful thing to experience.

    Which is actually true. But it doesn’t make it right.

    Besides, don’t you know that America has always been particularly blessed? Since the time of the Pilgrims it has been common knowledge that we are the New Jerusalem – the City on the Hill, and it has been our manifest destiny to spread the Gospel – American style.

    The great preachers of the Gilded Age; Conwell, Strong, Abbot, Billy Sunday and others touted a Gospel that put God’s stamp of approval on laissez-faire capitalism (which I am a fan of but not too sure of God’s opinion) as well as American imperialism. Things we are all still paying for today.

  6. I believe Conwell is absolutely right! The finest revelation since Jesus’ resurrection. Unquestionably it would be the greatest thing that could ever happen to the Christian Religion. Not the money part but the part that says, “money pays your preachers, and you would not have many of them, either, if you did not pay them.”

    Less preachers, less churches. Less Churches, more Jesus. That’s got to good! ;-)

  7. Them’s fightin’ words Net. I thought you were espousing a less bellicose theological rhetoric. ;)

  8. Um . . . I guess I would be one of those preachers who gets paid with the church’s money, so I suppose I ought not make any radical comments. :-) . And why am I struggling with a different sermon every week when I could give the same one over and over and earn $8 million?

    Does it help if I say I buy a lot of my clothes at thrift stores?

    I’m in the camp that it isn’t necessarily evil to have money–it’s our attitude about money that’s the problem. I have known amazingly generous rich people, and cranky, stingy poor people, and vice versa.

  9. Ah, don’t worry about Net. I’m just waiting for someone to say that being paid to cook and serve food to others (which is what both of us have done over the years) is in some way Biblically inhospitable :shock:

    “I have known amazingly generous rich people, and cranky, stingy poor people, and vice versa.”

    Right. And that touches upon some of the things in Conwell’s sermon. Although I don’t agree with everything he says and I think that overall the tone is off the mark, he makes some very good points about the character of the wealthy, which is often maligned by those who are not. Just another form of scapegoating. We see this when we perversely giggle at the ‘crucifixion’ of prominent wealthy people like Martha Stewart.

    But… although we shouldn’t make scapegoats of the rich (or anyone at all, for that matter) that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ‘prophetically’ criticize a system that makes people rich on the backs of others. (And I’m not talking about Bill Gates – I’m talking about all of us.)

  10. If the point is about breaking one’s head how to make money, I think there is nothing immoral about it. In fact we need to motivate people about that. Businesses create jobs. And employment feeds people. State simply must regulate the matter. In fact Society has advanced a long way on that.

    Greed is another thing. It’s about making money at the expense of creating misery all around. And religion is focused at caring for the miserable since the Haves can very well take care of themselves.

    Let him sell, I think Russell H. Conwell is a bloat and an out of order. Summing him up tastes like “Greed is good”. Whatever, I think society is very well on top of him and his kind, or else it is in the process of doing it – eliminating them [Socialism] when they cannot be regulated or harnessed for progress [democratic Capitalism. Like yesterday, they lend money at 300% interest while today they lend as low as 3 - 8%.]

  11. Never mind if they make millions of dollars out of their billions. That could be jalousy. They cannot bring it when their time is over anyway :-)


Leave a response

Your response:

Categories