thought for the day

Painful lessons on worship, thanks to Bach

/ Minimalist Christian / 1 Comment

It had been a busy period approaching Easter, but Good Friday had arrived with the promise of a short break.  We decided to start the weekend with a treat – to listen to St Matthew’s Passion by Bach in Coventry Cathedral.  An amazing piece of music that has formed an act of worship for many people over hundreds of years, we were looking forward to it.  We shared a lift with friends, one of whom was performing in the choir.

I knew nothing of the piece, but was a little alarmed to hear that it lasted three hours – I know what cathedral chairs can be like, and I was feeling somewhat worn down by some stressful meetings at work.  We had well placed seats, although the gentleman who sat next to me wore ‘fragrance of smoker’, and I noticed when the music began that his breathing was rather loud.  I prepared myself to be ‘wowed’ by the wonderful music.

Fifteen minutes into the performance I realised that the music and I spoke different languages of worship.

Thirty minutes in and I prepared myself for the ordeal as I do for the discomfort of a long flight in cramped uncomfortable airline seats; try not to wriggle too much so as not to disturb others,  focus on trying to doze and calm oneself to patiently endure the flight, listen to some nice music through headphones – not something I could do here of course.

It was not an un-spiritual experience.  It reminded me that Christ had suffered intently on the cross, that it had gone dark for three hours, that he’d willingly submitted himself to the pain, but that it would not have been an enjoyable experience.  And finally, thank God, it was finished.

The friends that I went with loved it, talking excitedly about different parts of the performance and how moved they were by it.  I was emotionally exhausted and felt excluded from the party – there was nothing positive I could think of to say, and I didn’t want to spoil their enjoyment of the evening so I was silent.  It was working until over dinner one of them mentioned I’d been quiet and asked what I’d thought of it.  After a few moments silence someone else spared me with ‘not your cup of tea then’, and the evening moved on.

Having had time to reflect a little, there are some lessons to learn from the experience.

  • Even the most brilliant worship music will not appeal to everyone, and will drive some people away.  If you want to help everyone ‘worship’, then you need a variety of approaches (not all musical!)
  • It feels very lonely and friendless being in an environment where others are enthusing about a method of worship that leaves you cold.  You can be left feeling ‘what’s wrong with me?’, and spiritually drained.  Don’t ‘demand’ that everyone enthuses about what you find uplifting, and don’t judge them if they don’t ‘connect’.
  • If you are feeling low, then a worship event may not be the best remedy.  You may end up worse that when you began.
  • Even if you are experiencing something painful, there are lessons to learn from it.

I don’t regret going, but I don’t suppose I will quickly repeat the experience.  Nobody wants to be the spectre at the feast.

Am I just a computer simulation?

/ Minimalist Christian / 1 Comment

Research suggests that human brain has more switches than the entire internet.  Each of the 125 trillion synapses that connect our 200 billion brain cells appears to have perhaps 1000 molecular scale switches. (ref 1)

Some areas of our brain take the input from our nerve cells and begin to process them.  They pass through other processing areas that start to interpret the signals; this sequence of signals from an eye might show us that an object is moving for instance.  Other areas deal with hearing or touch or smell.  Most of these areas carry out their functions without imposing on our consciousness.  At the top level, our brain presents a model of our environment to our conscious self.  The conclusion of this would seem to be that we are living within a computer simulation: generated by our brains based on input from the senses around our bodies interacting with our environment.  The question is, are we interacting with the computer simulation or are we the simulation itself?

Back in 2001 the Nick Bostrom speculated that scientific knowledge and computer power would at some time in the future increase sufficiently to build a simulation of the human brain in a computer (ref 2).  That computer would also be able to build a sufficiently complete model of the universe that an individual simulated human brain would not be able to distinguish it from the real thing.  The model would include not only one simulated person, but many, so that each ‘person’ had the true ‘experience’ of interacting with other ‘people’.

He reasoned that since the people who created this simulation would be likely to run a number of simulations (like our kids run lots of ‘Sims’ scenarios)  “Then it could be the case that the vast majority of minds like ours do not belong to the original race but rather to people simulated by the advanced descendants of an original race.”

There are inherent assumptions that Bostom builds on:  that our consciousness and ‘me-ness’ are simply emerging characteristics of the complex computer circuitry within our brain, and that science and technology will continue to advance until we understand and can model the brain operation.  The reasoned conclusion is that if these assumptions are correct then you and I are simulated beings in a computer simulation.

If that is the case, then we might conclude that it is of little consequence to switch off a particular simulation, in the same way that we are quite happy to switch off our computer.

But what if an alternative view is correct, that ‘we’ are not the simulation itself?  What if there is something about us that is more than an emergent property of a highly complex computer? What if there is a ‘me’ that transcends the ‘matter’ that makes up the computer in my head?  What happens then if the computer is switched off?  Do I cease to exist, or do I simply cease to interact with this particular computer?

The answer to that question lies beyond science and technology. We will have to look elsewhere for guidance.

———————————

References:

1) http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/human-brain-has-more-switches-than-all-computers-on-earth/

2) Are you living in a computer simulation? Philosophical Quarterly (2003) Vol. 53, No 211, pp.243-255. (First Version: 2001)) Nick Bostrom

———————————

For more on this topic and others see The Big Picture- an honest examination of God, Science and Purpose

———————————

Time to ditch Jack Sparrow’s moral compass?

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

I read a headline this morning that the UK government is paying strip clubs and lap dancing bars thousands of pounds to employ young people.  http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1376579.ece What sort of moral compass are they travelling by.  It is Jack Sparrow’s compass: it points at whatever you feel like.

Many of the young people I meet today have already succumbed to the temptations of smoking (tobacco and weed), drinking (to excess), internet pornography and instant gratification sex.  Many have anger management problems, are bored easily, struggle to see any purpose in life, and find it hard to get and keep jobs.  And I live in ‘middle England’, I can’t imagine what it is like in the most deprived areas.

Who can blame them?

We have structured our society so that we take our children away from their parents and put them in schools where the only adult interaction is focused on learning facts that will help them pass exams.  We have structured our economy such that parents have to work long hours, often at weekends, so our less affluent families have little time for child parent interaction.  We have so regulated schools with ‘child protection’ that the few adults who do interact with children are not allowed even to touch them, and who live in fear of accusation of child molesting. We have done our best to mock and marginalise religious institutions who try to suggest that some form of restraint might be beneficial.

We have put our children in an institutional ‘Lord of the Flies’ scenario, and added the instant gratification of TV, internet, and readily available drugs (legal and illegal).

Surely it is time for a serious rethink.

Instead of sticking plaster politics and abdicating any vision of the future to ‘market forces’, let’s try to define what we want society to be like, and then see what needs to be done to get there.

Please share your ideas of what an ideal society would look like.

The wealthy are redeemable.

/ 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

/ 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

/ 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”

Previous posts:

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

/ 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:

wealth distribution

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.

………………………………………………..

Related links:

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

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

To ensure that you hear about the Rainbow Economy, click the ‘follow’ button.

 

A fresh understanding of Grace

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

St Paul asked the rhetorical question “Well then, should we keep on sinning so that God can show us more and more of his wonderful grace?”  He then went on to answer with complicated and metaphorical language about being buried with Christ through baptism.  But I read this just after reading a facebook post from someone I care about behaving in a way that frankly won’t bring them happiness, and is simply satisfying their lustful urges. Looking at how I felt puts a new and simpler perspective on the question.

Let’s take it as read that God is love, and that he loves each one of us deeply.  We also need to understand that sin harms us deeply.  It may satisfy an immediate urge, but it harms us.  In the same way that it saddens me to see those I love harming themselves, it must sadden God so much more to see us harming ourselves.  Yet God still loves us, and in the same way that I still care about the person above, he cares about us.  I will not reject that person, and God will not reject us.  But it saddens Him so much that he was prepared to see Jesus tortured and killed on the cross to try to get through to us.

So if St Paul’s language seems confusing, just put yourself in God’s place and imagine how you would feel seeing your beloved son or daughter self-harming.  You would long for them to give up their life of sin, and return to your loving arms.  If they wanted to make a fresh start,  you would do whatever it takes to wipe their slate clean.  And that is just what God has done for us.

That’s why we shouldn’t keep on sinning; it causes God more pain and sadness and it does us no good either.

Simple.

Austerity is Working?

/ Minimalist Christian / 7 Comments

“Austerity is Working” proclaims the headline in The Sunday Times.

Why does this make me angry?  Shouldn’t I be glad that this pain that we are ‘all’ going through is finally working?  After all, ‘we are all in this together’ so isn’t this encouragement to keep taking the treatment?

But what does ‘working’ mean?  Let’s look at some other headline news that I recall recently:

  • More people in work than ever before rely on state support to feed their families
  • Food banks opening and helping thousands (and bizarrely someone claimed that this was a sign of a civilized society, that a few good people try to make up for the ineptitude of the rich)
  • The “lost generation”: young people struggle to find work and purpose.

Is that what we mean by ‘working’?  Surely not.  Let’s look further:

  • 2500 bankers are going to get bonuses of over £1 million
  • 11% pay rise for MPs to take their salaries over £70thousand

If I were cynical I might think that the writer must be referring to the latter two examples.  But no, he is referring to the new god, “the economy”.  This “thing” that we have raised above basic humanity, above compassion, above “loving our neighbour as ourself”.

And who are the priests of this new god?  Not the small people.  Not those who suffered from losing all their savings in the banking crisis, or those whose money bailed out the banks.  Not those who have to pay the extra ‘bedroom tax’.  Not those who are now going to have to work to 66 or older just to feed themselves.  Not those who frequent the foodbanks and rely on state support.

The priesthood are the wealthy.

Compared to many, I am wealthy.  I could pay more tax and it would be no more than a minor inconvenience. But it makes me ashamed that we have a government who would rather tax the poor than risk offending the rich.  Why do we not have a government who would close the budget deficit through taxing the higher paid, or tackling obscene bonuses, and a rich class who would willingly support them?

I have not suffered at all in this economic crisis.  I continue not to suffer.  And neither do any of our MPs, or any of those who administer the economy.  Neither does Mr Johnson, who openly advocates greed as good.

I am ashamed, but helpless.  I cannot see any political party that would change things.  They all worship at the same altar.

I do what I can for those around me, and I’m sure you do to – but it’s not enough.  It’s time for a new politics.  It’s time for another Mandela, or Gandhi; time for a statesman not a politician.

The nation waits, but where is such a leader to be found?

—————————————————————

https://philhemsley.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/basic-economics/

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

The Author’s Fear

/ Minimalist Christian / Leave a comment

For all those of us who write about God, I found the following by George MacDonald in an anthology of 365 readings compiled by CS Lewis.

If I mistake, He will forgive me.  I do not fear him: I fear only lest, able to see and write these things, I should fail of witnessing and myself be, after all, a castaway – no king but a talker; no disciple of Jesus, ready to go with Him to the death, but an arguer about the truth.

A wise reminder!

 

Related articles