Recently I heard a Radio 4 programme with a theme which was powerfully anti-wealth.
It was a collection of ‘spiritual’ quotes and poems juxtaposed with some gorgeous music. Think “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to go to heaven” with the choir of St Cuspins Under Wold singing psalms in the background… and you have the idea.
Actually I enjoyed the programme but found myself wondering why so many ‘sages through the ages’ have had this anti-wealth mentality.
I think I know why.
When I listened carefully, wealth (riches) was always of the ‘heaps of gold in the vault’ variety. In other words, the mere amassing of money for its own sake was seen as ‘a bad thing’.
Hold the presses!
The modern equivalent might be five cars, three houses, eleven wrist watches, 200 dresses or suits, £10,000 handbags and millions in the bank doing nothing.
But I have never advocated accumulating wealth like this.
Surely it is very shallow and the sages are right?
But on the programme there was not a word, not a whisper of the POWER that money can bring.
This is because religions (sages, etc.) are not big on ‘power for the people’.
They prefer subservient, timid, ‘meek and mild’ sheep – but I won’t go too far down that route as Christmas is approaching!
I have always said, and will keep saying, that money is not for accumulating sparkling baubles to amuse ourselves with.
Money is for putting out your energy into the world with POWER – making a big difference through your own particular vision.
That can be saving the whale or the Sudanese orphans.
It can be creating a world-beating company or finding a cure for Huntingdon’s disease.
And here’s the point… Almost any vision you have which is worthwhile will take money – actually, very large amounts of it in some cases.
That’s what money is for – and that’s why you can’t get enough of the green folding stuff.
On the radio programme, concerning this positive, noble, empowering use of money there was… total silence.
I will leave you to consider why there was such a glaring omission.