I was reading back over some of the speeches from the Cranston banner meeting last night and one that stuck out to me was the woman who said they shouldn’t worry about the money because the lord will provide.
It had not occurred to this woman that the lord has not provided during the initial ruling. He had not provided when the school got stuck with a reduced, but still considerable $173,000 bill the first time. The lord, it turns out, is a very poor provider.
And when the lord doesn’t provide, who suffers? The students of Cranston, most assuredly. There would be no blame to the lord, just a shrug of the shoulders and a “Too bad, I guess the school gets to provide now.”
Had their been another outlet to fund the lawsuit, you can bet this woman would’ve cited that. She would’ve said, “We should appeal – the money is available.” But the money wasn’t available, and so she had to assure the committee that even though the lord has been conspicuous by his absence so far, he would really come through if they voted to gamble their children’s education in support of her religion. Only when there is no way it could reasonably work out do we get “The lord provides.”
It is an excuse to go into something that looks on the surface doomed to failure. What’s more, it’s an admonition to go into it without a contingency plan.
“The lord provides” isn’t cheery optimism, it’s irresponsibility pursued. I’m glad most of the committee members were content to hold the lord to his past record of not providing and to not waste a dime of education money expecting the lord to change gears.