I don't even agree with Ann on EVERYTHING. ;)But, I'm not quite sure that I agree with you on the universal evil of wealth, implied by your use of the phrase "filthy lucre."
Money, righteously earned, can be a powerful force for GOOD in the world, IMHO.The Good Samaritan wouldn't have been as much help to the man he found beaten in the street, if he were the BROKE Samaritan. ;)
33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him.
35The next day he took out two silver coins[c] and gave them to the innkeeper.
'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
AC has obviously made and saved enough money to provide for all of her material needs - esp when you include future royalties. She should be more discriminating than ever before simply because she does not need the money. By accepting the money she lends credibility to their cause even if her speech totally discredits them. Not endorsing ‘universal evil’ of wealth by we must always remember ‘the love of money is the root of all evil.’ Too many modern-day christians are stalking after wealth to the complete exclusion of any yearning after God.
The reason I refer to it as filthy lucre is twofold - the source of the money and worse yet a christian accepting that money from a group to which she should be idealogically opposed. I’m not saying she can not associate w/ sinners - I’ve had many co-workers over the years who either were sodomites or gave the appearances of same. I’m saying that no good can come from her accepting that money from those opposed to christianity.