Two shirts at Christmas?

December 21, 2015 / Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

Friends on Facebook know that I often share posts highlighting injustice. And I have written blog posts prompted by claims that ‘austerity’ is working. But in the face of injustice, with a government that shows no sign of compassion, and with years to the next general election, doesn’t this just breed despair and helplessness: “It’s too big a problem, and what can a single human being do to change things?” So why do I speak out about injustice?

To grumble and whinge? No
To cry out for change? Yes
To educate that it is indeed injustice? Yes
To encourage readers to ask “what can I do?” Definitely.

Many years ago a wise man said “If you have two shirts, give one to the poor. If you have food, share it with those who are hungry.” He was speaking in a time of great injustice, under a government that brooked no dissent. There was no changing the system, but he was calling every person to make a difference. He was challenging the culture of the day. That is what I hope to achieve.

I choose not to follow the culture of self-interest and greed endemic today, where we are expected to make all decisions on the basis of maximising our personal income. I try to make life decisions on what is good and right, and that includes recognising that I have “two shirts”. I long for the wealthy to recognise the same.

But where does the strength come from to be counter-culture? It does not come from the media, or from political leadership. It comes from the one that the wise man served.

Do you want to make a difference? Then begin. Choose goodness. Choose love. Transfer your allegiance from the culture of selfishness to the one who is supreme goodness; the one whose birthday the world is celebrating.

Have a great Christmas!

Jeremy Corbyn, the wind of change?

September 14, 2015May 1, 2017 / Minimalist Christian / 7 Comments

I have just joined the Labour Party, because Jeremy Corbyn has been elected their leader.

Many people, including political commentators, seem to think that the election vote was for Corbyn’s policy preferences rather than for the person. But I am less interested in the policies than the person. He is a breath of fresh air compared with previous Labour and current Conservative leaders, who exhibited an autocratic style of leadership. If Corbyn were an autocrat then I would be worried! But I remember that early in his campaign he talked of policies being formed by the party, not one person. If that is the case, I may even become active as a Labour Party member!

I am optimistic because I don’t think that the man is an idiot. He knows that he has to create a new unity within the Labour Party. That must be a unity where each opinion is valued and where each member is expected to vote according to their conscience. That is what he has lived throughout his political career, and that is one of the reasons people have voted for him: we are tired of political puppets dancing to the tune set by their leader (or worse, the big donors to their party).

Ever since Thatcher, our nation’s leaders have told us that it is OK to be greedy; that those with high wages ‘are worth it and deserve it’. Nobody has dared suggest that the poor may not want to be poor, and that their wellbeing is more important than a thriving economy that is able to support the wages of the rich. Corbyn is prepared to put the case for the poorest in society. He does not have to pick a fight with the wealthy if they are ready to recognise that they have a responsibility as fellow human beings to do their fair share in trying to balance the nation’s books. But if they don’t listen, and if greed prevails, then protest may become necessary.

I see Corbyn’s landslide election as a catalyst for a new type of politician, with humility and integrity, who is willing to serve and represent their community. Who can say quite what will happen, but disruption of a stale and failing political system has to be a good thing. If nothing else, he has captured the imagination of the younger generation. Let’s hope that this brings the positive change that we all want.

Greece is on the verge of a great future – don’t throw it away!

July 15, 2015 / Minimalist Christian / 8 Comments

What is it that defines a successful country? The wellbeing of the citizens, or the nation’s riches? The two are not the same.

Wellbeing: feeling loved and valued, health, happiness, contributing to society –these are the things that matter, that make us human. These do not come with national wealth but with equality and relationships – how people value and treat each other.

In the war, everyone was ‘in it together’ and although times were hard, apart from the obvious war wounds, people were healthy, valued and fulfilled. Society became much more equal. If Greece chooses to adopt a true attitude of unity (not like Cameron’s phony ‘Big Society’) where everyone looks out for each other, where those with more help out those with less – because they matter as fellow human beings – then Greece will thrive!

The worry is that Greece is so keen to stay in the “Euro” club that they will give up their wellbeing to do so. They are already feeling un-valued, un-loved and betrayed. They are dealing with institutions, but institutions don’t have a soul and don’t care about people, so why is Greece surprised. But they don’t have to shackle themselves to the rich man’s yoke to live well.

So long as there is food on the table and friends to eat it with, so long as their whole society unites in a common cause, they will thrive. But if they choose to be victims of the wealthy, if their society chooses to take what they can as individuals then they will indeed suffer. The richer Greeks will be materially fine but the poor will hurt, health for all will worsen, there will be riots and unrest, and productivity will reduce too – the signs are already there.

Greece is at a crossroads, but it’s not the crossroads reported in the press. It is a crossroads of its citizen’s attitude to each other. They can lead the world in showing how to be successful without being serfs to the economic barons. I hope that they choose wisely.

Work and Pay

June 27, 2015 / Minimalist Christian / 9 Comments

I think the world has become confused about work.

Instead of thinking that work is something to be endured to bring in the money we need to live, or a means of making us rich we should think of our work as our contribution to fulfilling the needs of society. We need to start thinking of it as ‘what can I give’ instead of ‘what do I get’.

And in a similar manner, society needs to think more clearly about the needs of the individual. All of us need to eat, sleep and live somewhere that we can call home. And the reciprocal side of the exchange is that when someone contributes to society, then society has a duty of love to meet the needs of that person.

Jesus told a parable of a man who hired workers for his vineyard. Some he hired in the morning, some in the afternoon, and some just before closing time. But he paid them all the same. He paid them what they needed to live. But of course, those who worked all day felt that this was not just and grumbled. Yet the vineyard owner pointed out that they were happy to work for their agreed wages, and they had received them. All the workers were willing to work. They were willing to make their contribution to society, even if there was no immediate work required. And they all had the same needs. The vineyard owner met their needs. Why can’t we follow this example?

Similarly, how do we decide how much someone should be paid? Is it according to the contribution that the job makes to society? How valuable is it to society when a person sits at a desk and manages our money? How valuable is it to society when a person removes the rubbish that we create during the week? How valuable is it to society when a person serves us a meal in a café or restaurant? I have to say that the most valued workman I’ve encountered is the one who came to clear our blocked drains when the raw sewerage was overflowing! Yet he is paid less than I am, when I spend much of my time sitting at a computer terminal.

It is not my aim to claim that job A is X times as valuable as job B, but to add into our thinking and actions that we need to be willing to pay each person sufficient to meet their needs.

Unfortunately the recent trend is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. I don’t have a problem with unequal pay, and with pay that reflects the value to society of the work. But I do take issue with a system that ignores the ‘need’ part of the equation.

Can you and I do anything? Yes we can. Even if it is only being willing to pay a fair price instead of the lowest price for goods and services.

But also, the reward for our work is more than just money. We all value the respect of our fellow human beings. One thing that we can all do is to treat everyone, in whatever job, with respect and with appreciation.

And similarly, when we are working, we can consider our work as more than just a job but as a contribution to society. The bricklayer can choose to be building a home instead of laying some bricks.

And we also need to respect those who are seeking work but unable to find it. Not only do they receive no wages, our benefit system disrespects them and prevents them making their contribution to the good of us all. Can’t we treat them like those in Jesus’ parable who were looking for work , and who at the end of the day were then paid what they needed to live.

Let’s think on these things as we go about or daily life of working, waiting, shopping and ‘consuming’. Let’s change our attitudes.

Financial advice from Money Box Live, or Pope Francis?

June 21, 2015 / Minimalist Christian / 3 Comments

I was listening to the radio program Money Box Live last week. They were talking about pensions. It seems that if you delay taking your pension for a year then the amount of your pension increases by about 10% per year when you do take it. I guess this is a government scheme to reduce spending on pensions today at the cost of increasing it in future years, perhaps when there may be another government in power – but that’s not the point of this article. The thing that caught my attention was that they got a mathematician to describe the best time to take your pension.

The longer you delay, the higher the pension when you take it, but the less time you take it for. So if you know when you are going to die (which you can look up in statistical tables) the mathematician was working out a time at which the total amount of money you receive reaches a maximum.

All very logical and calculable, so why am I writing about it? Because it is a symptom of the cancerous thinking that underlies so many decisions today:
Our goal is to maximise the money we get, even if we only get it on the day before we die.

We forget that the more we have, even when we don’t need it, the less there is for others.

We don’t consider that the schemes we invest our money in minimise costs, such as the wages of the lowly paid, or maximise income, such lending our money at high rates of interest.

We ignore the fact that making decisions on the basis of maximising our income reinforces the extremely unfair financial systems that we have today, where the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

It is not easy to turn down opportunities to make more, or spend less. It is natural to want to buy the cheapest milk, or trainers, or energy – but each decision has its consequence.
When we invest to minimise our tax bill, we are placing the burden of paying for our public services on others. We are encouraging our government to introduce ‘austerity’ measures – “sanctioning” benefit claimants if they miss an appointment (in effect, fining them 100% of their income). We place the burden of balancing the government’s books on the poor.

My mother died last year. She didn’t spend the pension she received, and her investments grew, and we were surprised at the amount of money that she left. I have to decide what to do with the money I inherited. Money Box Live would tell me to invest to maximise my income. But I agree with Pope Francis, I reject that basis for my decisions. How about you?

“You can’t support them all can you?”

May 15, 2015May 16, 2015 / Minimalist Christian / 13 Comments

Let me start by start by confessing that I am writing this to myself as much as to anyone else, and particularly to those of us who call ourselves Christians. It covers the challenging topic of giving money. Often we say, or hear others say something like, “I won’t give to that charity. You can’t support them all, can you?” It sounds reasonable, but is it correct? Christians believe that Jesus Christ gave everything for us. He gave his life that we might have a rich and satisfying life. We believe that there is guidance in the Bible on how to live such a life. Here are some passages:

“Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow.” “If you have two shirts, give one to the poor. If you have food, share it with those who are hungry.” “When you give to someone in need, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. Give your gifts in private, and your Father, who sees everything, will reward you. Looking at the man, Jesus felt genuine love for him. “There is still one thing you haven’t done,” he told him. “Go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

The message appears to be that yes, we can support them all. I was discussing this with my wife after looking at the distribution of income on an earlier post. When would it be OK to say no, we are giving enough? I suggested that perhaps it was OK when our income net of giving was that of the lowest on the curve – the bottom 10%. If we expect people on the bottom 10% to live full and satisfying lives on their income, shouldn’t we be willing to do the same? Elsewhere in the bible is states that: “Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” So how does that fit with “sell all you have and give the money to the poor”? Perhaps it means that if we are unable to give cheerfully to anyone who asks then we need to work on our heart. Maybe we need to teach ourselves to love more. As well as listening to the advice on how to maximise our income, invest in schemes to give high interest and avoid paying tax, we need to be hearing that we can manage on less. We can still maximise our income, but to give more away instead of saving it for ourselves. See also my post “The Wealthy are Redeemable” Yes, I am sure I am being hypocritical in writing this. But that does not make what I have written wrong. Let’s all ponder this in our hearts and see what we decide to do.

………………………………………………………………………

If you want some ideas, try these links:

http://5quidforlife.org.uk/

Home

feel free to add your own in the comments. I’ll add them here when I get time.

The wealthy are redeemable.

January 26, 2014February 10, 2014 / Minimalist Christian / 3 Comments

I read today that the plan to reintroduce a 50% tax band has ‘stoked fury’.

It is criticised as “penalising the business community, which is already hard-pressed.” Yet “The 50p top rate, which affects the top 1% of earners..” http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/Politics/article1367969.ece

If I were cynical I would say that this looks like the wealthy lining up to protect their wealth.

With nobody pointing out the moral obligations of the wealthy as members of society, that we need them to be ready to help the millions who are really being penalised by austerity, and who are really suffering, then who can blame them. With government leaders like Boris Johnson telling them it is good to be greedy, then a selfish attitude to protecting their wealth is inevitable – but as a society such selfishness is not acceptable.

Research has shown that wealth in a moral vacuum will lead to selfishness, lack of empathy and self-justification. However it also shows that with a little moral guidance, pointing out the difficulties being faced by those on very low incomes the attitude can change.(See http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean.html?utm_source=email&source=email&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ios-share)

I don’t believe that the wealthy are irredeemably greedy, but please can we offer some moral guidance, and help them to understand that we are “all in this together”.

So please, politicians and media magnates, say to the wealthy, “There are millions of people in our country who are really suffering due to economic hardship. They are not all scroungers. Most would like to work and to contribute to society, but they cannot. They need your help. Will you help please?”

Thank you.

Scientific support for The Rainbow Economy

January 11, 2014 / Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

A link to a fascinating talk below. The beginning is rather depressing, but the finish supports the solution proposed in The Rainbow Economy.

Do listen to it all.

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_piff_does_money_make_you_mean.html?utm_source=email&source=email&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ios-share

The Rainbow Economy

January 5, 2014 / Minimalist Christian / 1 Comment

My three posts “Austerity is working?” I, II, and III have highlighted that there is an inherent injustice in our world today. And Ian (comments) tell us that even in economic terms austerity is not working. What is the solution?

I reminded us of the amazing and bloodless transition from an Apartheid regime to a Rainbow Nation that was led by Nelson Mandela. It worked because he managed to change the hearts and minds of the people to repent of and forgive past injustices, and be reconciled to one another. He changed the attitudes of the people of the nation of South Africa. He, Desmond Tutu and others reminded people that everyone, black or white, was equally valuable; not equal (as in identical) but Sons of the same Father. His vision was a nation which was a single community which treated everyone as a brother, irrespective of colour. Mandela changed the rules of the game – he change people’s attitudes.

Economics is about predicting the outcome of different actions and regulations. Predictions are based on the response of individuals to those actions educated by the response in similar situations in the past. The distribution of wealth shown in my earlier posts is a result of the initial distribution of wealth, economic rules and regulations, and people’s attitudes. As a simple formula:

Distribution of wealth today = Fn(Distribution yesterday, Economic Policies, Attitudes)

We have seen that the trend of today’s equation is to distribute the wealth more towards the rich. We have seen that most people would prefer a more even (but not uniform) distribution.

But it seems that the only variable in the equation above that anyone advocates changing is Economic Policies. Whether someone is an extreme capitalist or extreme socialist, focus is on tax and spending regulations and regimes – about different Economic Policies.

But what about Attitudes?

I recall a radio interview with one of Margaret Thatcher’s colleagues or friends, asking how she reconciled her hard economic policies with her Christian beliefs. The reply was that privately she looked to charity to ease the discomfort of those who suffered. But of course it would have been impossible for her, or the tough government to tell the nation to be charitable, it would reek of hypocrisy. Instead, her government and policies changed attitudes in that they gave individuals permission to be selfish and greedy – echoed today in Boris Johnson’s speech headlined “Boris Johnson invokes Thatcher spirit with greed is good speech”.

Ian made another comment, that in today’s South Africa there is an “endemic entitlement mentality including laziness, victim mentality, and bitterness that redistribution has not brought what the poor expected”

From these two example. at either end of the wealth spectrum, attitudes focus on self-interest. Such attitudes might be justified by comments like: “It’s not my job to care about anyone else – that’s the government’s responsibility” or “It’s the government’s responsibility to give me a job – it’s my right, I shouldn’t have to suffer”.

In the past humans lived in groups and tribes where everyone knew each other and everyone looked out for each other. People lived in communities and all felt responsible for the good of the community as a whole. There were expectations on individuals to contribute to the community and to help each other if they found someone in need. Relationships were considered important (you had to live with each other after a dispute) and everyone pulled together to make the community work.

Today we live in states where (generalising) we look to the government to look out for others. We don’t really care about the community as a whole so long as we are alright. Relationships matter less because we can always move somewhere else if we fall out with our neighbours, move jobs if we fall out with our boss, and change partners if we fall out with our partner. Our role in and value to society is as a ‘consumer’, and policies focus on giving the consumer what he wants. We have expectations of our government, and having paid our taxes we don’t really see that we should do anything more to help them. As long as we as individuals are comfortable we see no need to do so. We have abdicated our social responsibility to the state.

I think it is time to take it back.

Our attitude needs to change from that of selfish individual consumer. We need to become once again a member of a community, a member of society who feels responsible for society as a whole.

We need to change our expectations of ourselves and others to do what we can to help each other. We need to embrace the attitude of “what can I contribute” and respond according to our abilities. In such a climate we would see for instance Mr Cameron the individual behaving as if we are indeed “all in this together” and using his personal fortune to benefit others. We would see those who are on state benefits asking what they can do to contribute to society – and being given opportunities to contribute.

We need to value each person equally and encourage each to grow to fulfil their potential. Love has been defined as exerting oneself for the well-being of others. We need to love more – achieved by looking outwards. Oswald Chambers said that ‘Self-pity is of the devil”. Self-pity in difficult circumstances leads to bitterness and a victim mentality. Self-pity in comfortable circumstances prevents doing what is right for fear of our own needs in the future.

This new attitude is not completely absent from society (see links at the bottom), but it is rarely promoted and needs boldness and courage because it is so counter cultural. But let’s all be part of the revolution. A revolution in attitudes rather than government. A revolution that says “we are all going to make our society healthy …. Starting with me!” A revolution that calls us to “love one another as we love ourselves”.

So where can we start?

Take a look around and ask “what could I do to help?” “How can I spend my time better?” “How can I spend my money better?” “Who can I help who is struggling?” “Can I be doing something more valuable than watching TV?” There are so many possibilities. Can I help a young person contribute to society and earn some money? What organisations or charities could I help? Can I mentor someone? Can I visit a lonely old person, or pay their heating bills? Now I’m retired, what can I volunteer to help with? Since I have no time with my busy job, can I support important work financially?

But also, encourage others to do the same. When our friends grumble at the government for this or that, challenge them to think differently and take back some personal responsibility. We need to give each other permission to help society, to expect it rather than be surprised by it. We all need to change mindsets. We need to spread the word!

And of course we need to let the government – our representatives know what we want them to truly represent. We need to let them know what sort of economy we want, but we also need to demonstrate that we are ready to contribute too.

So, we are not helpless observers. Each one of us can make a difference. Let’s try.

Here as promised are some links which show some of what is happening already:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-official-statistics-show-resurgence-in-volunteering-as-millions-more-give-their-time-to-help-others

http://www.ivr.org.uk/ivr-volunteering-stats

In Britain, philanthropy is more dependent than ever on the generosity of the wealthiest, with the richest 1,000 taking a growing, active and more public role in charitable giving. Even as the latest UK Giving report showed a 20% fall in real terms in the amount the public gave to charity last year, the new Sunday Times Giving List survey showed a more than 20% increase in giving by the wealthy elite. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/BusinessRichList/article1246509.ece

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/

https://www.cafonline.org/PDF/UKGiving2012Summary.pdf

And finally, for encouragement, some quotes from one who claimed to speak for God:

“If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”

“Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”

“Love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.”

“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy …. for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also”

“Do not worry about your life, what you will eat and drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?”

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?… You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and they you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye”

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/austerity-is-working/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/27/austerity-is-working-ii/

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/austerity-is-working-iii/

Austerity is working? III

December 30, 2013 / Minimalist Christian / 7 Comments

The world economy is in difficulty and has been for many years now. Debt is embedded in the system: individuals owe money to banks (who live off lending them more), nations owe money to the financial markets. All measures of wealth show that the richest are getting richer and the poorest are getting poorer. (See Austerity is working II).

People agree that the ideal is not a flat distribution of wealth. They think that the distribution of wealth favours the rich too much, but in reality it favours the rich much more than we realise:

But is there a problem with this? It depends on your personal philosophy.

For instance, if I think it is right that one human being, through no effort of its own (e.g as a result of who its parents are and where they happen to live) should be 1 million times richer than another, then this data in itself will not worry me.

Similarly, if instead of comparing myself to those who have more income than me I compare myself to those with less then I will not enjoy any feelings of being ‘hard done by’.

Opinions vary, but it seems that around $50000 is an ideal income for happiness. http://www.learnvest.com/knowledge-center/the-price-of-happiness-50000-123/ and a 2012 UK headline stated that “Families need £36,800 to live acceptably, study says” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18770783 Anyone earning more than that is likely to feel very comfortable.

So, in the rich West, most people are basically happy most of the time, cocooned by an income where financial concern is limited to sustaining the present level of comfort rather than worrying where the next meal is coming from. Most of the time the inequality of wealth doesn’t really impact, apart from leading to a few grumbles and jealous thoughts about those who earn more than we do. Passivity rules until or unless a crisis occurs which affects us as individuals, and then we get to see how difficult the situation really is for those who the system exploits and tramples… the poorest.

As I said in my earlier post (Austerity is working?) the current crisis has not noticeably affected the rich. Maybe there has been some mild discomfort for the better off, but the brunt of the austerity is taken, as usual, by the poorest.

Most of us realise that this is profoundly unjust.

Most of us want something to be done about this, but we look at our politicians and realise that they simply don’t understand. They are not even in the ‘mild discomfort’ bracket, and simply cannot empathise with those who have NO money at all to feed their family; those who have to get the basics for survival from the multiplying food banks. The people want the politicians to understand, hence petitions challenging MPs to experience living on low income: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/iain-duncan-smith-iain-duncan-smith-to-live-on-53-a-week

The gulf in understanding is emphasised when the rich Mayor of London advocates greed:

Johnson called for the rich to be hailed for their contribution to paying for public services as he said that the top 1% of earners contribute 30% of income tax. “That is an awful lot of schools and roads and hospitals that are being paid for by the super-rich. So why, I asked innocently, are they so despicable in the eyes of all decent British people? Surely they should be hailed like the Stakhanovites of Stalin’s Russia, who half-killed themselves, in the name of the people, by mining record tonnages of coal?”

The mayor added: “It seems to me that though it would be wrong to persecute the rich…. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/boris-johnson-thatcher-greed-good

What exacerbates the injustice is the despair that there is no hope of changing the system. Those who have the power are those who benefit from the present system, and they have no intention of changing it. The democratic process which in theory would allow the people to choose honourable and just leaders offers no serious alternative. The traditional parties are basically indistinguishable, and so people begin to jump at any possibly credible alternative, such as the right wing UKIP party – not realising that the basis of the policies of UKIP is as flawed as the traditional parties.

And here we approach the reason for our problem. Economics works by trying to predict the behaviour of the masses to different financial laws and environments. And behaviour of the masses responds to the moral climate generated by the media and politicians. Changing the moral climate is a necessary part of the solution, but at present there are few trying to instigate the essential global climate change.

Governments are afraid of doing anything to damage the economy. They will only introduce humane policies if the pressure against the injustices of the system becomes too strong: if there is sufficient discomfort that we ordinary people are jogged out of our passivity; and when the politicians are at risk of losing their power. Today, ordinary people are stirring, but as yet they don’t see any way of ousting the politicians. In the past, these sorts of frustration have led to revolution and bloodbath.

Is there any alternative?

For an answer I look at the most recent success of humanity over greed and selfishness. I look at the transition from an evil apartheid regime ruling South Africa to a Rainbow Nation. I look to what made the difference between a bloody revolution and a peaceful change.

Mandela realised that trying to force a powerful opponent who had suppressed and oppressed millions of fellow human beings to hand over power by violence would lead to immense human tragedy. The mind-set of all oppressors includes fear of retribution, indeed, doesn’t justice demand retribution on the oppressor? Doesn’t justice demand an angry and violent response to injustice? That is the response of human nature. And if you are like me, you will have an inner core of anger at the injustice in our country today. It would feel right to ‘persecute the rich’, and the frustration at not being able to do so makes the anger and bitterness deeper. We are justified in feeling that – justice demands a fairer system.

But that is not the way. “An eye for an eye makes everyone blind”.

Mandela changed the hearts and minds of those in power.

The first step was to jog the world out of passivity, to show the world the oppression and to campaign for justice. The South African government could no longer claim ignorance about their unjust position. They realised that apartheid was untenable and so the barrier to change moved to one of fear of retribution if they were to lose power. We see the beginnings of that same fear in Boris Johnson’s comment that “it would be wrong to persecute the rich” – but I think we are in the situation where world leaders are still convincing themselves that the present system is OK. “Economic Apartheid” is working just fine!

Mandela’s second step was to graciously talk with those in power. He was willing to forgive their past injustice, and to lead his followers to forgive. He was not prepared to accept future injustice, future oppression of either the blacks or whites by the other group. He presented the vision of a rainbow nation, and inspired both blacks and whites to embrace that vision. Mandela gave up justified bitterness for the sake of the people, and he taught his nation to do the same. We need to learn from his approach.

So where are we today? We know that Economic Apartheid is unjust, but too many people have adopted the Johnson mantra ‘greed is good’, or are not sufficiently discomfited to shift from passivity. There is not yet enough voice crying out against economic injustice, and there are too many who justify it or ignore it. That needs to change. You and I need to change. We need to speak out.

Then we need a vision for a “Rainbow Economy”, and a change in mind-set that underpins it. That will be the topic of a future post.

………………………………………………..

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: