I have never owned stocks and shares, but I have a sense that the flotation of the Royal Mail reveals something of what is wrong in our society and with modern capitalism. As I understand it, the original idea of stocks and shares was to enable a company to set up business and the shareholders had literally a vested interest in the enterprise. Those who paid the piper called the tune, you might say: managers or directors managed or directed on behalf of the shareholders. But with the growth of capitalism and the flourishing of huge multi-national corporations, the distance between shareholder and manager grew and grew with the result that ownership was separated from overall control. Managers/directors reign supreme and shareholders have become impotent, though with one benefit: the shareholder has exchanged control and responsibility for the delights of liquidity (F. Mount, The New Few). In other words, the shareholder can make a killing and institutional investors make vast fortunes: in the case of Royal Mail, £433m on the first day!
Now there is nothing wrong with this per se, and it is a perfectly acceptable way of investing and making money. However, it seems to me that lack of 'ownership' is a problem becoming endemic throughout society, and our economic system reveals it. There is powerlessness on the part of the many, and increasing power and wealth for the few. Everything is someone else's problem, which leads to the opt-out we are seeing in our political system. In the end, we just play the game and do what's right by ourselves. Or as someone said recently, 'No one believes anything any more'. An overstatement that makes the point.
How refreshing then to see the film Les and I watched at the weekend, Life of Pi. It was a wonderful film, both visually and the plot. Often you asked yourself, 'how did they do that?' - boy and tiger on lifeboat following shipwreck. The best line for me is when Pi describes himself as a Catholic Hindu (or was it Hindu Catholic?) 'I didn't know you could be both,' says his friend. 'Yes,' says Pi. 'I feel guilty before a hundred gods!' Essentially, it is a story about human growth through adversity with a richly spiritual theme, as Pi does battle with what St Paul might call 'the elemental spirits of the universe.' In the end, it turns out there are two versions of the same story and Pi's friend is invited to choose which he prefers - with or without God? The version with God being the better, according to Pi.
Monday, 14 October 2013
Monday, 7 October 2013
A New Identity
I watched our latest rental DVD on Friday night: 'Blood Diamond', with Leonardo diCaprio in the lead role. The setting was Sierra Leone 1999, and a story about diamond smuggling. The subtext was about young boys being brutally kidnapped from their homes to become boy soldiers on the side of rebel forces. For me the most moving scene occurred when one such boy is pointing a gun at his own father, who gently approaches him, reminding him of the life they once shared and of their relationship which could now be restored. Both characters are in tears, as the boy lowers the gun and they embrace each other. His identity as 'soldier'gives way to that of 'son'.
On Saturday, I had the great privilege of sharing half a day with 40 or so key leaders from our three churches. I spoke to them of our identity in Christ, of how despite the challenges which face us in today's world, it is our identity as God's people (with which God clothes us) which is determinative for all we do and say. I also shared this quotation from CS Lewis from Mere Christianity:
‘The Church exists for nothing else but to draw men into Christ, to make them little Christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time. God became man for no other purpose.’
It's a challenging statement, but I do believe it is ultimately what we are about: helping everyone to find a new identity. This does not mean of course that we are overbearing or manipulative; but it does mean that we are in a state of constant invitation. We hope to follow this through with a Week of Blessing at the end of this month, with the themes of Heaven, Hope and Hospitality.
Then on Sunday, it was the 30th anniversary of a couple from St Barnabas, who wanted the whole church to celebrate with them. I spoke again of the new identity, how man and woman accept the identity of husband and wife, given them by their marriage vows. From the realisation of that identity should come the necessary changes in behaviours and priorities which go with being married.
I suppose 'become what you are' sums it all up.
On Saturday, I had the great privilege of sharing half a day with 40 or so key leaders from our three churches. I spoke to them of our identity in Christ, of how despite the challenges which face us in today's world, it is our identity as God's people (with which God clothes us) which is determinative for all we do and say. I also shared this quotation from CS Lewis from Mere Christianity:
‘The Church exists for nothing else but to draw men into Christ, to make them little Christs. If they are not doing that, all the cathedrals, clergy, missions, sermons, even the Bible itself, are simply a waste of time. God became man for no other purpose.’
It's a challenging statement, but I do believe it is ultimately what we are about: helping everyone to find a new identity. This does not mean of course that we are overbearing or manipulative; but it does mean that we are in a state of constant invitation. We hope to follow this through with a Week of Blessing at the end of this month, with the themes of Heaven, Hope and Hospitality.
Then on Sunday, it was the 30th anniversary of a couple from St Barnabas, who wanted the whole church to celebrate with them. I spoke again of the new identity, how man and woman accept the identity of husband and wife, given them by their marriage vows. From the realisation of that identity should come the necessary changes in behaviours and priorities which go with being married.
I suppose 'become what you are' sums it all up.
‘The Church exists for nothing
else but to draw men into Christ, to
make them little Christs. If
they are
not doing that, all the cathedrals,
clergy, missions, sermons, even the
Bible itself, are simply a waste of
time. God became man for no other
purpose.’ CS Lewis Mere
Christianity
‘The Church exists for nothing
else but to draw men into Christ, to
make them little Christs. If
they are
not doing that, all the cathedrals,
clergy, missions, sermons, even the
Bible itself, are simply a waste of
time. God became man for no other
purpose.’ CS Lewis Mere
Christianity
Wednesday, 25 September 2013
Of Malls and Palaces
The recent event in Nairobi is the stuff of which nightmares are made. Trapped inside a building, under fire from brutal men (and woman?). It is significant of course that the terrorists went for an up-market shopping mall, a symbol of wealth and prosperity, hitting a country where it would hurt most.
I have been thinking this week about the interior life. Our spirits sometimes feel they are being invaded by hostile forces which threaten us: fear, unfulfilled ambition, anxiety, low self-esteem, desire for wealth, power or recognition. We all have different 'soft spots' in the landscape of our lives, which we try to protect in a variety of different ways. It's what sometimes makes us aggressive, over-sensitive, depressed or moody.
I am struck by something CS Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, borrowing an analogy from George MacDonald. Imagine yourself as a house, in a bad state of repair. As we grow in grace, it is as if God is fixing the damage but then we realise he has another plan altogether. Lewis concludes,
You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage: but God is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it himself.
Thinking about the interior life, what is going on in the minds and the hearts of terrorists? How corrupted have they become? What can persuade them to sacrifice themselves not for the life but for the death of others - thinking of the Christians recently killed in Pakistan? It is as if they themselves have been invaded, and the spirit of their creator God driven out.
I have been thinking this week about the interior life. Our spirits sometimes feel they are being invaded by hostile forces which threaten us: fear, unfulfilled ambition, anxiety, low self-esteem, desire for wealth, power or recognition. We all have different 'soft spots' in the landscape of our lives, which we try to protect in a variety of different ways. It's what sometimes makes us aggressive, over-sensitive, depressed or moody.
I am struck by something CS Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, borrowing an analogy from George MacDonald. Imagine yourself as a house, in a bad state of repair. As we grow in grace, it is as if God is fixing the damage but then we realise he has another plan altogether. Lewis concludes,
You thought you were going to be made into a decent little cottage: but God is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it himself.
Thinking about the interior life, what is going on in the minds and the hearts of terrorists? How corrupted have they become? What can persuade them to sacrifice themselves not for the life but for the death of others - thinking of the Christians recently killed in Pakistan? It is as if they themselves have been invaded, and the spirit of their creator God driven out.
Friday, 13 September 2013
Syria - and the Common Good
It seems like more than a week ago that I was on a conference at Liverpool Hope University, entitled 'Together for the Common Good'. It was an exploration of the work of Bishop David Sheppard and Archbishop Derek Worlock, to see what might be learned for today's Church in facing issues of social justice. Below, you can read a letter which I wrote to the Church Times afterwards, and is published today. A first for me! The conference was obviously rated significant enough to merit 4 letters on the letters page, plus a report.
However, on my mind the whole weekend was Syria - as it has been before and since. I am so thankful Parliament took the stand it did; that President Obama seems to have followed suit; and that now there seem to be diplomatic moves between Russian and Syrian governments, to deal with the issue of chemical weapons. However, these weapons don't seem to me to be the issue: tens of thousands more lives have been lost by the use of conventional weapons and by various forms of brutality and torture on both sides. Chemical weapons (like WMDs in Iraq) cannot be made a reason for intervening, making a truly terrible situation even worse.
There are at least three reasons for not getting involved militarily:
Could not 'common good' thinking apply to international politics as well as to local issues of social justice?
Here's the letter:
However, on my mind the whole weekend was Syria - as it has been before and since. I am so thankful Parliament took the stand it did; that President Obama seems to have followed suit; and that now there seem to be diplomatic moves between Russian and Syrian governments, to deal with the issue of chemical weapons. However, these weapons don't seem to me to be the issue: tens of thousands more lives have been lost by the use of conventional weapons and by various forms of brutality and torture on both sides. Chemical weapons (like WMDs in Iraq) cannot be made a reason for intervening, making a truly terrible situation even worse.
There are at least three reasons for not getting involved militarily:
- It's not just about Syria, but the whole middle-East, including Israel-Palestine. Robert Fiske (journalist with the Independent) points out that behind the current conflagration stands Iran - the real enemey, he suggests, in American eyes - and western interference could have the effect of bringing them further into the conflict with unthinkable results.
- There is the issue of foreign governments involving themselves in the affairs of other sovereign states. Where would that end? There are many other unjust regimes in the world, yet the West has stayed out of those. The only justiable reason for such action would be if one's national security were threatened, as for example, Britain in 1939.
- The Bible has a clear instruction for dealing with situations where wrong prevails. It is to 'overcome evil with good': 'Goodness is stronger than evil', says the South African song. To start bombing Syria would add evil to evil.
Could not 'common good' thinking apply to international politics as well as to local issues of social justice?
Here's the letter:
Letter to The Church Times, 10
September 2013
A Coalition
of the Just
Sir – Hilary Russell’s article (Restate the Common Good, 30
August) rightly highlights the need for a new confidence for churches, acting
together in the face of an increasingly polarised and unequal society. The
conference to which the end of her article referred has just taken place at
Liverpool Hope University. It was a truly remarkable event, drawing together
over 150 people from a whole range of different fields: politics (including a
smattering of MPs), journalism and the media, universities, charitiable
organizations, and the Church (archbishops, bishops, clergy and various lay
employees, from several denominations). These mingled with a number of mainly
Christian local activists from all over the country to recall the
Sheppard-Worlock partnership of the 70s, 80s and 90s to see what lessons could
be learned for today.
I returned with two clear impressions. Firstly, the ‘state
we’re in’ is probably far worse than
many people realise. The growing number of foodbanks and the displacement of
people from their homes because of the ‘bedroom tax’, are just two signs of
chronic poverty particularly in our urban areas. Furthermore, as many delegates
pointed out, our political system is proving quite incapable of dealing with
the problems which face us. Meanwhile, it is evident that an oligarchy of
wealthy individuals have increasing power while proving themselves indifferent
to the needs of the poor.
However, in terms of response to our nation’s ills, the
situation may be better than many
people realise. The passion for justice and the common good at the conference
was palpable and those present were only a tiny proportion of like-minded
people, including their own colleagues. Not all were practising Christians;
most were. And the clarion call of the conference was for them to have more
confidence (like Sheppard and Worlock) that the Church does indeed have a
prophetic voice to speak to a nation, city or community in distress.
Furthermore, by partnering with each other, with those of other faiths, and
those of none we can speak with a voice which unites rather than divides. We
can form indeed a coalition of the just. With the raising of hope, action will
follow.
With the 2015 General Election coming into view, could the
language of ‘the common good’ be one we could speak together? Could this
language help to form more alliances to address our local and national needs?
Tuesday, 27 August 2013
Running Backwards!
It was the first home game of the season last Saturday for Everton, and only the second for our new manager, Roberto Martinez. We were playing West Brom, and it was not the most exciting of games, ending in a 0-0 draw. We will have to do a lot better if we are to achieve anything this season. But it's early days, as Martinez brings his own style to our team. One perceptive fellow-Evertonian said, 'I can see what Martinez is trying to do - but not sure we have the right players to do it!' Time will tell whether they can adjust.
During one particularly uneventful period of play, I was captivated by the referee. (That shows how dull the game was!) I am not exaggerating, from a throw-in, he ran half the width of the pitch backwards! Once I'd noticed this, I became aware that referees often run backwards. I suppose that is part of their training: keeping their eye on the play, while getting to where the ball is likely to be kicked or thrown. It's quite an art actually: don't try this at home, but I bet you couldn't run far backwards without falling over!
I remembered this as I began to read a book I have recently been recommended: Relationships - A Mess Worth Making by Timothy S. Lane and Paul David Tripp. As the title suggests, it addresses an issue which I guess brings us the greatest joy and the bitterest struggle. Most of us, the writers suggest, live somewhere between two extremes as far as relationships are concerned: on a continuum between Isolation (the safe option) and Immersion (total dependence). Neither are healthy for human wellbeing. The first precludes healthy relationship altogether; the second inevitably leads to disappointment and dashed expectations. Somewhere along the line there has to be struggle, engagement, risk, hopes and values honestly shared. The writers say, 'The highest joys of relationship grow in the soil of the deepest struggles.' But they are worth it!
Unfortunately, the tendency is to 'run backwards' from relationships. This is not the same as running away, turning one's back on the other person. It is more keeping one's distance, not getting involved, avoiding conflict or difference - and therefore not investing in that person's life. Inevitably, that means we will not receive from them either. The Church is full of people running backwards! And so is our culture.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has just retired as Chief Rabbi. In an interview on Sunday, he said that society is 'losing the plot', as illustrated by the collapse of various institutions, most notably the banks, and including marriage. At the heart of the problem is the loss of trust between people and institutions. The reason is that secular society is highly individualised (people running backwards?), fearful of commitment, which of course is one reason why marriage has become less popular.
Put positively, I often say at weddings that the newly-married couple are an inspiration! They believe there is a future, and that the future is held in trust to one another. The best thing about marriage is that one person promises another that they will give themself to the other for the rest of their life. The fact that this promise is mutual is the basis of trust in that relationship.
As in marriage, so in other relationships: they are healthiest when we move towards each other, and even embrace each other, rather than observe from a distance, preserving our own space, doing our own thing.
During one particularly uneventful period of play, I was captivated by the referee. (That shows how dull the game was!) I am not exaggerating, from a throw-in, he ran half the width of the pitch backwards! Once I'd noticed this, I became aware that referees often run backwards. I suppose that is part of their training: keeping their eye on the play, while getting to where the ball is likely to be kicked or thrown. It's quite an art actually: don't try this at home, but I bet you couldn't run far backwards without falling over!
I remembered this as I began to read a book I have recently been recommended: Relationships - A Mess Worth Making by Timothy S. Lane and Paul David Tripp. As the title suggests, it addresses an issue which I guess brings us the greatest joy and the bitterest struggle. Most of us, the writers suggest, live somewhere between two extremes as far as relationships are concerned: on a continuum between Isolation (the safe option) and Immersion (total dependence). Neither are healthy for human wellbeing. The first precludes healthy relationship altogether; the second inevitably leads to disappointment and dashed expectations. Somewhere along the line there has to be struggle, engagement, risk, hopes and values honestly shared. The writers say, 'The highest joys of relationship grow in the soil of the deepest struggles.' But they are worth it!
Unfortunately, the tendency is to 'run backwards' from relationships. This is not the same as running away, turning one's back on the other person. It is more keeping one's distance, not getting involved, avoiding conflict or difference - and therefore not investing in that person's life. Inevitably, that means we will not receive from them either. The Church is full of people running backwards! And so is our culture.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has just retired as Chief Rabbi. In an interview on Sunday, he said that society is 'losing the plot', as illustrated by the collapse of various institutions, most notably the banks, and including marriage. At the heart of the problem is the loss of trust between people and institutions. The reason is that secular society is highly individualised (people running backwards?), fearful of commitment, which of course is one reason why marriage has become less popular.
Put positively, I often say at weddings that the newly-married couple are an inspiration! They believe there is a future, and that the future is held in trust to one another. The best thing about marriage is that one person promises another that they will give themself to the other for the rest of their life. The fact that this promise is mutual is the basis of trust in that relationship.
As in marriage, so in other relationships: they are healthiest when we move towards each other, and even embrace each other, rather than observe from a distance, preserving our own space, doing our own thing.
Monday, 19 August 2013
Leaving Church
Perhaps I should begin by saying, 'I'm not!' - leaving church that is! But an awful lot of people are, for a whole lot of different reasons. It's sometimes said that church has a narrow front door (it's hard to get into) and a wide back door (easy to leave). In my experience, not many people, having belonged to a church, decide to leave. They just miss for a few weeks - perhaps through illness or personal circumstances - and find they didn't miss it. Even worse, no one seems to have missed them either. At least, no one bothered to say so by getting in touch to enquire.
This presents quite a challenge for those of us in leadership. For one thing, we need to have a church culture where people are missed and are contacted if they go missing for any length of time. This is not as easy as it might sound, because these days not many people go to church every week: such are the complexities of modern living and the other choices available, from caring for elderly parents to owning a weekend cottage or caravan. It is also sad, but true, that too many people only come to church if they have some particular reason to do so: assisting in children's ministry (which might mean they don't appear in church anyway!), reading the lesson, singing in the choir or music group, administering at Holy Communion, being on welcome team etc. It betrays an attitude which is more about doing than being church. Whether or not we have a particular function on a particular Sunday, our presence is required. Who knows whether or not God might call on us to offer a word of comfort to someone who is struggling, or to rejoice in someone's good news? And don't we all need to make ourselves available to God by offering ourselves in worship, open to the promptings of the Spirit and the teaching of the Word week by week? Ok - so not all sermons are brilliant, but you never know when that light-bulb moment may happen!
Recently, after a rather difficult church meeting, someone said 'Where was Jesus in that meeting?' I wish I had thought quickly enough to say, 'he was sitting next to you, or across the room'. In other words, he was present in your brother or sister. I think it was Martin Luther who used to say that every Christian should be a 'little Christ', representing their Lord to each other and the world.
I am reading 'Leaving Alexandria', by Bishop Richard Holloway, former Bishop of Edinburgh. Here is a man who has definitely and intentionally left the church, eventually finding the conflict unbearable between private doubt and public ministry. He is a scholar whose life journey has taken him from Glasgow slums to national prominence. It is a sad book, I think, and I find myself wondering whether his deep disappointment is more with the Church than with God. He seems to have fallen in love with Church - its rituals and its monasticism - in his teenage years and somehow this got in the way of his relationship with God. As disillusionment set in, so it became impossible to continue as a member of the Christian church. I am reminded of another bishop, John Robinson, years ago who wrote that it was important to love Jesus more than the Church.
To which I would add: we love the Church for Jesus' sake.
Coincidentally, I was reading at the weekend an interview with Barbara Brown Taylor - an American Episcopalian priest. She has also left the Church, in the sense that she has moved out of parish ministry, after many years as a particularly gifted preacher and pastor, into academia as a professor of religion. She says, religion gets in the way of God when the well becomes more interesting than the water...She has actually written a book called 'Leaving Church', which I suspect is more positive than Holloway's. What holds us together [as 'church'] is a certain way of seeing the world; a certain set of sacred stories that keep that view in place; and a certain way of responding to them that gives life meaning. That's not a bad way of describing what it means to belong to a 'community of blessing'.
September 29 is 'Back to Church Sunday' (www.backtochurch.co.uk). A good opportunity to re-engage with those who may not have left, just taken leave.
This presents quite a challenge for those of us in leadership. For one thing, we need to have a church culture where people are missed and are contacted if they go missing for any length of time. This is not as easy as it might sound, because these days not many people go to church every week: such are the complexities of modern living and the other choices available, from caring for elderly parents to owning a weekend cottage or caravan. It is also sad, but true, that too many people only come to church if they have some particular reason to do so: assisting in children's ministry (which might mean they don't appear in church anyway!), reading the lesson, singing in the choir or music group, administering at Holy Communion, being on welcome team etc. It betrays an attitude which is more about doing than being church. Whether or not we have a particular function on a particular Sunday, our presence is required. Who knows whether or not God might call on us to offer a word of comfort to someone who is struggling, or to rejoice in someone's good news? And don't we all need to make ourselves available to God by offering ourselves in worship, open to the promptings of the Spirit and the teaching of the Word week by week? Ok - so not all sermons are brilliant, but you never know when that light-bulb moment may happen!
Recently, after a rather difficult church meeting, someone said 'Where was Jesus in that meeting?' I wish I had thought quickly enough to say, 'he was sitting next to you, or across the room'. In other words, he was present in your brother or sister. I think it was Martin Luther who used to say that every Christian should be a 'little Christ', representing their Lord to each other and the world.
I am reading 'Leaving Alexandria', by Bishop Richard Holloway, former Bishop of Edinburgh. Here is a man who has definitely and intentionally left the church, eventually finding the conflict unbearable between private doubt and public ministry. He is a scholar whose life journey has taken him from Glasgow slums to national prominence. It is a sad book, I think, and I find myself wondering whether his deep disappointment is more with the Church than with God. He seems to have fallen in love with Church - its rituals and its monasticism - in his teenage years and somehow this got in the way of his relationship with God. As disillusionment set in, so it became impossible to continue as a member of the Christian church. I am reminded of another bishop, John Robinson, years ago who wrote that it was important to love Jesus more than the Church.
To which I would add: we love the Church for Jesus' sake.
Coincidentally, I was reading at the weekend an interview with Barbara Brown Taylor - an American Episcopalian priest. She has also left the Church, in the sense that she has moved out of parish ministry, after many years as a particularly gifted preacher and pastor, into academia as a professor of religion. She says, religion gets in the way of God when the well becomes more interesting than the water...She has actually written a book called 'Leaving Church', which I suspect is more positive than Holloway's. What holds us together [as 'church'] is a certain way of seeing the world; a certain set of sacred stories that keep that view in place; and a certain way of responding to them that gives life meaning. That's not a bad way of describing what it means to belong to a 'community of blessing'.
September 29 is 'Back to Church Sunday' (www.backtochurch.co.uk). A good opportunity to re-engage with those who may not have left, just taken leave.
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
James Bond and the Importance of 'We'
Les and I had a marvellous weekend a few days ago. We travelled south, with Jude, for some time with Les' extended family. On Friday night, an early 70th birthday meal for her elder sister, and the next evening a much bigger party for her cousin's 50th. We were particularly delighted that our own entire family made the journey to Hertfordshire to share in Saturday's festivities. They all love being with aunts, uncles and cousins. En route there or back, each of us in turn visited my mother, who is in a nursing home in Rugby, together with my sister and her husband who live nearby. So, a good all-round experience of family. During the day on Saturday, we wandered leisurely around St Albans, where I was brought up. It was market day, and the place was truly alive. I have never seen so much fresh fruit and veg on display. It was good to revisit the Abbey in particular, where I was confirmed just after we won the World Cup in 1966!
It was so good to reconnect with wider family and my own past.
On our return (leaving at 5.30a.m. to get back in time for church!), we found ourselves with a free Sunday evening. So we watched our latest rental DVD, 'Skyfall' - the most recent James Bond epic. Here I have to confess: I have never watched a James Bond film before! I gather this one was typical in terms of the spectacular effects, car chases, shootings and sexual encounters. Hugely entertaining stuff, but my overall feeling was that it was much ado about not very much. The plot, such as it was, made little sense to me. But I gather this was a more sensitive picture of Bond, by now an aging agent, rather past his sell-by date with more normal human feelings and a definite vulnerability. I guess I'd give it 3*s out of 5.
Presumably, if bizarrely, because of 'Skyfall', James Bond was the theme of the youth pilgrimage to the Anglican shrine at Walsingham, Norfolk last month. The ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury) addressed the pilgrims, saying that as Christians we are the opposite to James Bond: it is not our task to save the world single-handedly. Rather, we are part of a community, the Church, to whom God has indeed entrusted that task as the Body of Christ. This is a truth which bears on me more and more the longer I serve in ministry. I don't think many of us Christians realise just how important we are, as a body, in God's purposes for creation. For this reason, it is so important that we think in terms of 'we' in the Church rather than 'them and us' - for which you can read those of different theological persuasions, Christian denomination, or leaders and led.
I have had cause to address this recently in a particular situation, where them/us language has crept in. For Church, it is always 'we'. Could not the same be true of society, if we seek the common good? I have just started to read 'The New Few' by Ferdinand Mount. His thesis is that slowly, inexorably over more than 50 years Britain has slipped into oligarchy, or the exercise of government by the few i.e. the wealthy and powerful. Despite Osborne's 'all in this together', nothing could be further from the truth. It is very much 'us and them' - the wealthy, powerful few and the general public. Mount quotes Adam Smith from 1776:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but that the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices.
Ring any bells? The worrying thing is that history shows oligarchy e.g. in Rome to be a sign of a crumbling society.
It was so good to reconnect with wider family and my own past.
On our return (leaving at 5.30a.m. to get back in time for church!), we found ourselves with a free Sunday evening. So we watched our latest rental DVD, 'Skyfall' - the most recent James Bond epic. Here I have to confess: I have never watched a James Bond film before! I gather this one was typical in terms of the spectacular effects, car chases, shootings and sexual encounters. Hugely entertaining stuff, but my overall feeling was that it was much ado about not very much. The plot, such as it was, made little sense to me. But I gather this was a more sensitive picture of Bond, by now an aging agent, rather past his sell-by date with more normal human feelings and a definite vulnerability. I guess I'd give it 3*s out of 5.
Presumably, if bizarrely, because of 'Skyfall', James Bond was the theme of the youth pilgrimage to the Anglican shrine at Walsingham, Norfolk last month. The ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury) addressed the pilgrims, saying that as Christians we are the opposite to James Bond: it is not our task to save the world single-handedly. Rather, we are part of a community, the Church, to whom God has indeed entrusted that task as the Body of Christ. This is a truth which bears on me more and more the longer I serve in ministry. I don't think many of us Christians realise just how important we are, as a body, in God's purposes for creation. For this reason, it is so important that we think in terms of 'we' in the Church rather than 'them and us' - for which you can read those of different theological persuasions, Christian denomination, or leaders and led.
I have had cause to address this recently in a particular situation, where them/us language has crept in. For Church, it is always 'we'. Could not the same be true of society, if we seek the common good? I have just started to read 'The New Few' by Ferdinand Mount. His thesis is that slowly, inexorably over more than 50 years Britain has slipped into oligarchy, or the exercise of government by the few i.e. the wealthy and powerful. Despite Osborne's 'all in this together', nothing could be further from the truth. It is very much 'us and them' - the wealthy, powerful few and the general public. Mount quotes Adam Smith from 1776:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but that the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices.
Ring any bells? The worrying thing is that history shows oligarchy e.g. in Rome to be a sign of a crumbling society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)