The human measure of divine characteristics has always been interesting. Earthly expressions of damnation and wrath know no bounds. You’ll not struggle to find believers who will judge a person worthy of hell without equivocation if a particular sin goes without repentance or is committed too many times. No matter what the extenuation in circumstance, the conception of God’s punitive measures does not struggle to exceed imagination.

Unfortunately this abundance of imagination doesn’t tend to extend to God’s mercy in the same degree. Time and again religious wisdom reaches beyond even the cruelest levels of human sadism to warn others what God is capable of for punishment. These punishments can come in return for something as taking God’s name in vain inadvertently in the moment, or ascribing to the wrong religion despite an honest desire and attempt to be close to God.

Imagine what these religious leaders would deem as the Godly punishment for putting Jesus to death? Continuous physical and spiritual torture notwithstanding, the punishment for simply not believing is harsh enough let alone cruelly going after God in human form. If the punishment for blasphemy is eternal damnation, what is the cost of killing God?

Fortunately for them Jesus’ divine standard of mercy deemed them worthy of forgiveness. As Jesus lingered close to death his final words regarding his tormentors was a plea for exactly that: Forgive them father, they don’t know what they are doing.

Dare to believe God’s love and mercy are more than you can express. Moreover, dare to share such a message with others. You may find your faith in your own salvation strengthened.

I feel like mainstream Christianity missed a trick when it came to the financial crisis. Imagine the chord that might have been struck with the greater public had there been someone front and centre in visible televangelism ranting about keeping the lamps trim and how consumerism was out of control. Even without a soothsayer, if large tracts of Christian communities had emerged unscathed from the financial crisis, the claim to God inspired wisdom around matters of finance would have greater resonance in public discourse. However, a large cross-section of society, Christian and not, were touched by the financial crisis. You can bet there were a fair few financial traders who take a pew on Sunday who were caught out by the collapse.

Indeed, in the lead up to the current global financial woes, one of the more prominent themes in visible Christian discourse has been prosperity preaching. Now, I’m not against prosperity, but the problem is that the prosperity in prosperity preaching comes across predominantly as monetary.

Prosperity in a spiritual relationship surely bears its blessings spiritually first and foremost. Being spiritually blessed is its own reward and should surely be seen as separate and having no connection to financial means. In terms of what sustains a person, in a Christian dynamic it’s fitting that bread is the metaphor for what a person should be careful about focusing on in living day to day.

Mainstream Christian discourse could do better to make the distinction clearer. Financial means aren’t a necessary or promised part of the package of spiritual prosperity. Many communities through history have found ways to unite through times of material drought and maintain great spiritual prosperity despite the hardships suffered. Unfortunately the message that comes across in some Christian circles is that monetary ‘blessings’ are a fruit that proves spiritual prosperity. However, as the financial crisis showed, money doesn’t mean you’re spiritually prosperous, so it should follow that we should never see monetary means as evidence of spiritual prosperity, even if the person is a Christian.

In fact, if anything monetary means shouldn’t be seen as a blessing in reward for a strong walk with God, but a heavy responsibility to be exercised with wisdom to benefit those in need. Otherwise the temptation can be to acquire objects that exemplify spiritual prosperity through monetary blessing, even while fundamental spiritual aspects of a person’s life fall by the wayside. This approach typifies part of what brought us the financial crisis in the first place, the desire to exude success through acquisition, done quickly rather than thoughtfully.

If the Christian community can knuckle down and keep the lamps trim, a great foundation can be laid for future prosperity. Gains can be made with hard, humble work, rather than an ethic that falls in too easily with capitalistic mores that don’t lean far enough towards clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. Perhaps in lowering our monetary expectations for ourselves, we can learn to better share our abundance with those in need. This doesn’t need to be a straight transfer of money. It could be as simple as sacrificing potential earnings through time spent helping others to help themselves using our experience and expertise. It is this human to human contact which has the greatest chance of building spiritual prosperity, so much greater than writing a cheque.

Money is an evil we have made necessary, not a necessary spiritual tool gifted to us from God along with life since the time of Adam. There are enough of us whose parents did much to enrich our lives with a lot less than what many of the rich have done for the children we regularly see exemplifying excess and wayward behaviour in the media. This is not to say that being rich is bad for children, only that monetary means aren’t necessary for good children. Perhaps now is the time to double our efforts to extol a trimming of the lamps. Let others get excited over recoveries that may or may not eventuate. We can keep a constant ethic of conservative consumption, tied to spiritual prosperity, that people can take comfort in no matter what the financial conditions. What better way to prepare for any future financial storms?

Many religious and cultural traditions have a variation on this principle. There is a practical and social benefit to according the guardians of our youth proper respect. Ideally, bonds are sown in communities between youth and elder that cement unique values and behaviours designed to foster social harmony and the passing of wisdom through generations.

As with any social network, the system is not without its flaws. Elders compete with other influences for the attention of youth. The divide of perspectives through generations sees huge splits not just between age, but other factors like education and technology that also shape ideology. However, the lessons of elders that do leave their impressions hold a strong sway over a person as they progress beyond youth and become elders themselves. Indeed, with all the tensions that are traditional between elder and youth, the ideas that breach the divide and hold firm can only do so with a lasting, profound impact.

Consider, then, the youth that rages against a parent, particularly on ideas around religion. The youth loses the parent to premature death, but finds meaning in the religious lessons left behind, and becomes a devout evangelist in adulthood. Their ideology is somewhat conservative because the parent’s reaction to their rebellious youth was to extol the stricter aspects of faith as a protection against the whims of human desires.

Consider the youth that enjoyed a closer relationship with their parent based on their accord on religious principles. No matter what tensions existed in the realms of political and other issues, the youth has always felt the warm embrace of their parent symbolized chiefly in the harmony of their religious ideals. The youth’s religious upbringing was somewhat liberal, emphasizing the joy of acceptance in divine love and tolerance through humility of the ego. If anything, this upbringing was the parent’s reaction to their relationship with their own parent, which was far more distant.

Who is right when the two meet and debate ideology? Both see in the other elements that either disrespect the memory of a lost parent or undermine the close connection currently held with a parent. Worse, they see in each other the pratfalls of religious perspective that were exactly what their parents tried to shepherd them from in their youth. To varying degrees this issue exists as a stumbling block to harmony not only across lines of religion, but also denominations within religions.

One can make the case that both need to think twice before being too critical of the other. Much joy can come from sharing that which brings strength to our spirit. However, pushing that too hard on others who are already sustained in their walks can demand a dishonouring of a fundamental relationship not just in society, but religion. Paul takes this principle a step further in Romans 14, showing that the desire to force discipline on freedom or tear down discipline with freedom can dishonour a fundamental relationship between human and divine. The personal standards we set for ourselves aren’t always a necessity for others, even if they stem from our spiritual walk.

Honouring our mothers and fathers doesn’t end with blood ties. We may find our ties better bound in society if we took greater steps to respect the way others honour their mothers and fathers.