Does God Want You To Be Poor?

Op-Ed Columnist Michael Gerson attacks the prosperity gospel movement in his column this week Faith's Real Riches.

Gerson says prosperity gospel is "religiously infantile."

His comments come as some ministers living extremely well are being scrutinized by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Finance. (I wrote about the probe late last year in my column The Pulpit and the Bling-Bling.) Grassley has questioned whether it's appropriate for some leaders of multimillion-dollar ministries to live in majestic homes, drive luxury cars and earn CEO-like salaries.

"A religious system that promises happiness and 'nice things' is difficult to reconcile with the faith whose founder had 'no place to lay his head,' urged his followers not to store up 'treasures on earth,' and called on them to deny themselves and take up a cross of suffering," Gerson writes.

So, should only heathens strive to be rich?

A dear friend of mine gets livid when discussing our greed generation.

"My problem with the prosperity gospel movement is that it is too easy to morph into a justification for selfishness and elitism," he says. "Nobody wants to be Mother Teresa, but the least we can do is hold her up as an exemplar."

I don't disagree with my friend, but I think you should neither take pride in being poor nor revile being rich.

There's nothing wrong with being prosperous. However, prosperity should be achieved for a purpose. With wealth comes responsibility. As you prosper your personal mantra should be: To whom much is given, much is required. How tragic and selfish is it for you to have the money to buy a Mercedes Benz C-Class if you won't give someone else a ride?

Faith and Finance

With the economy still tanking there's been a lot written lately about people's faith and finances.

In a recent series, the Post examined the plight of low-wage workers, who have been hardest hit by the ongoing economic downturn. A national poll of 1,350 low-wage workers found that they have been pummeled by pervasive job losses and rising prices. Yet, despite their increasing financial insecurity, many say they remain hopeful for a better future and are still reaching for the American dream.

One of the questions in the poll asked low-wage workers: "What role does God or your faith play in helping you get through tough financial times?"

Seventy-eight percent of respondents said their faith played a very or somewhat important role in helping them cope with the current economic crisis, a vast majority. You can see graphics that dissect the highlights from the poll online.

A panel of experts tackle the question of why so many low-wage workers rely on religion to get them through hard financial times in the On Faith blog hosted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham.

Here are some of their thoughts:

-- "There is nothing surprising about the fact that nearly 4 out of 5 low-income Americans regard their faith as a comfort in hard economic times," writes author Susan Jacoby in The Poor Ye Shall Always Have With You

-- "I have not seen a scientific poll, but observation tells me that people who have little materially seem to trust God more than those who have an abundance," writes syndicated political columnist and panelist Cal Thomas in Hard Times? Where? Not Here

-- "Apparently there are no atheists in foxholes or in recessions," writes the Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite in No Atheists in Recessions

-- When it comes to personal finances, "Trust God, ask the hard budgetary questions of yourself and your family, and make the tough decisions," writes Nicholas Thomas Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, England in Trust God, Act Responsibly

I would love to hear your thoughts on the issue. Do you think God wants you to be poor? E-mail your thoughts to colorofmoney@washpost.com. In the subject line put "A Carpenter or a King?".

Be sure to check out the full series Hardest Hit: Hurt and Hope Among Low-Wage Workers. You can watch an interactive video poll in which authors Jon Cohen and Mike Fletcher interpret the results, answer selected poll questions to see how you compare to the official results and see portraits of three low-wage workers. The Post will be writing more stories on low-wage workers over the coming weeks and months so stay tuned.

National economics reporter Mike Fletcher and polling director Jon Cohen were online on Monday to discuss the series. Here's an excerpt from the transcript:

Q: What made you decide to do this series?

A: Mike Fletcher: The Post and our partners at the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University agreed that low-wage workers make up a big segment of our population that is often overlooked. Much of the political debate focuses on the "middle class." And to a much lesser degree, poverty is talked about. We wanted to draw a more complete portrait of this population that largely lives somewhere in between those two groups and see not only how this group was coping amid the economic downturn but also how it is faring in the new economy. Our national poll, which involved interviews with 1,350 people who earned under $27,000 last year and are between the ages of 18 and 64, did just that. People are struggling to get by, as we might have predicted. But they also are very optimistic, which is more surprising. The vast majority also likes or even loves their jobs, which I, for one, would not have guessed. They also do not have deep faith in the effectiveness of government programs. So the idea was to draw a nuanced portrait of these workers that gets beyond stereotypes and assumptions. We also hope to have the issues of this large group -- nearly a quarter of the adult population -- become a bigger part of the national debate.

An End To Early Termination Fees?

A California court ruled recently that Sprint Nextel was wrong to charge customers a total of $73 million in penalty fees for the early termination of cell phone contracts.

Oh, let's hope this ruling sets a precedent in other courts around the country.

"This gives great momentum to cases in other states," said Pamela Gilbert, a Washington attorney representing the California plaintiffs.

Sprint must pay $18.3 million in cash to users who paid early-termination fees; another $54.8 million must be credited to users who were charged but didn't pay the fees reports Post staffer Cecilia Kang in Court Tells Sprint To Refund Fees for Early Termination.

Kang writes that Sprint, T-Mobile and other wireless carriers are trying to protect themselves from lawsuits by lobbying the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new federal rules governing such penalties, removing them from state jurisdiction.

In June the FCC held a hearing about early termination penalties. Read the testimony of Chris Murray, senior counsel for Consumers Union.

Part of the mission of the FCC is to protect consumers from unfair business practices. I certainly think the early termination penalty is unfair. If you agree, contact the FCC.

You Asked

Here are a few questions left over from my online discussion last week:

Q: We just paid off our home equity line of credit. Next up is the car loan. However, our savings account is not where I would like it to be. My idea is to take the money we were using to pay off the HELOC and put it in the savings account each month, then when we have enough set aside to pay off the car, do that. Does this make sense?

A: Actually, I would like to see you build up your emergency fund. Put aside at least three months worth of living expenses. Continue to make your car loan payments as scheduled while you are building up a cash cushion. After you've built up your emergency fund take any extra cash and pay off the car early. While I agree getting rid of debt is a great thing, you don't want to do it at the expense of having an emergency fund in case something happens. Ideally, you build up an emergency fund at the same time you are taking a wrecking ball approach to your debt. And hey, after the car, go after that mortgage (as long as you are also saving for retirement).

Q: We just bought our first house and I was offered a job that pays $15,000 more but is 30 miles away (government position but 1 and 1/2 hour train ride). Being a mother yourself Michelle, what are your thoughts? Which is more important - being available to your kids or making more money? I know it's a tough decision but just like you I absolutely hate DEBT!!! Help!

A: I would opt to work closer to home for less money. When you add in the extra commuting cost and stress and perhaps even longer daycare hours, that $15,000 minus the tax hit may not look like such big money. I have three kids and the older they get the more time I need to spend with them just to make sure they stay on the right path.

Q: My husband and I bought our first home last year but had no money to put down, so we ended up with two mortgages. The interest rate on the second mortgage is rather ridiculous, so we were hoping to pay it off aggressively, but we're also trying to build up our emergency fund and save to start a family sometime in the very near future. We make pretty good money at the moment and are able to save, but we also have high hopes of being able to move to a single-income lifestyle in the event that I wanted to stay home with kids. How important is it to save vs. paying off that second mortgage?

A: I would do both, save and pay off the second mortgage. And not that you asked me about your family planning, but I would at least get out from under the debt of the second mortgage before having the baby. If you wait then you do have more choices if one of you decides to stay home with the child.

Q: I just got a new job with a $20,000 a year raise. I put 10 percent in savings and 10 percent in a retirement account. Here's my question: Two years ago I bought my condo with a 40-year loan with a 5.87 percent interest rate thinking I'd make extra payments. I don't have any credit card debt and try to live below my means. I owe $5,000 on my 6-year old car at 5.5 percent and $10,000 on my student loan at 2.5 percent. I've decided to aggressively pay down the car so I can get rid of the debt in the next year and then attack my student loans. But I get a nagging feeling about that mortgage. Should I refinance or focus on paying more on the mortgage now before I look at the car and the student loans?

A: I like your plan. Go after the car and then the student loan. Then, if you are comfortable with how you are saving for retirement and you have an emergency fund, go after the mortgage.

Q: I've had the same credit card for over 20 years. There's no fee and I get airline miles. I pay it off in full every single month. The interest rate is somewhat high -- about 14% -- but I never gave much thought to it since I would never ever carry a balance. A friend suggested trying to negotiate a better rate "just in case." I am a good customer and it seems likely they would work with me. But I also think it would be an unnecessary waste of a "favor" since it doesn't matter what the rate is. What are your thoughts?

A: I agree with your friend. And they aren't doing you a favor by lowering your interest rate. It's always business to the credit card companies.

You are welcome to e-mail comments and questions to singletarym@washpost.com. Please include your name and hometown; your comments may be used in a future column or newsletter unless otherwise requested.

Charity Brown contributed to this e-letter.