Although not bearing on Eliot's Anglicanism (thus my reversion to OT), Bush's Evangelical faith would be even less inclined to view the rejection of wealth as a virtue to the extent it draws from the Calvinist tradition, as many Evangelicals do.
In a message dated 11/3/2004 1:17:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, Tom Gray <[log in to unmask]> writes:
>--- Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> reading of what Jesus said seems to suggest that
>> neither Bush nor many
>> of his followers have a clue about loving their
>> neighbor or caring for
>> the least of us or eschewing wealth.
>The idea of eschewing wealth is not universal in
>Christianity. In particular, it is not universally
>accepted in Protestantism or the faith of the Church
>of England, which Elliot took up. There is a strong
>millenarian tendency in Anglicanism. Followers believe
>that by supporting their families and creating a more
>prosperous world, they are doing Godís work and loving
>their neighbour. In doing so, they are creating Godís
>kingdom in this world.
>This is certainly the type of Anglicanism that I was
>brought up in. It was the aspect of the faith that
>differentiated it from Roman Catholicism.
>I have wondered how this aspect of Anglicanism fits
>with Eliotís view of the world.
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.