A society broken

If you live in the UK, you won’t need to be told that over the last few days some crazy riots have been breaking out first in London and then spreading like wildfire across the nation. This bizarre phenomenon, to helpless morally-centered social analysts like me (that’s a rather grand title), is indicative of an inherent brokenness in a generation that has been abandoned by the last, which chose independence and individual rights and individual choice (the masks of selfishness) over love and family order and faithfulness, the things that originally caused a society like ours to be built in the first place. I’m going to say it outright: fatherlessness is a serious issue (not a dig at single-mum families, but at men who think they can do what they like!). Guys need their proper role models back!

On the surface of it, of course, there might be other reasons for this kind of thuggery. Poverty is rife as always in our nation. A government which purported to bring us ‘prosperity’ (Labour) left us in undoubtedly the stickiest fiscal situation we have seen in a long time (though the 20th century demonstrates a considerable pattern of crashes, depressions, crunches and debt, giving me little cause for confidence in the relatively young machinery of capitalism), and the ensuing debt crisis has left a sour taste in many mouths, and perhaps an impression in some of these criminal minds that it’s never going to get better for them. Combine poverty with a society littered with strong advertisements telling you what you don’t have but must definitely get, and it’s no wonder that these criminals think they should have the 42″ widescreen TV, even if they have to steal it.

Gang culture of course, which is at the hub of most of the rioting, naturally fosters a kind of rebellion. You might even have some kids in there from slightly more stable homes but if they unwittingly get drafted in they can still inherit the kind of spirit that hangs around in that atmosphere.

So, some of the questions that I feel most need asking:

How can society encourage good parenting? Why on earth is there not more of an emphasis and focus on this important societal role?
How can more jobs be found for the unemployed youth be created? How can employers be encouraged to give them opportunities? Even the basic sense of worth that comes from a simple job could make all the difference!
How can youth organisations be further empowered to target and begin to disseminate and discourage gang culture?

Some of these are huge questions but in my view they are some that fundamentally need addressing. Of course, this will probably just remain my humble opinion floating in the blogosphere, but I hope that at least some of these things will be more widely recognised and will become the focus of our government and of society in general.

Cambridge stakes its position

So the news reader on The World Tonight on Radio 4 told us that Cambridge University have announced plans to up their tuition fees to the new maximum of £9,000 next year. According to the BBC News website:

‘An internal report … argues that to charge any less than the maximum would be “fiscally irresponsible” and would raise doubts about the university’s “commitment to excellence”.’

Right, commitment to excellence. And to well-off families. And “fiscally irresponsible”? How can it be fiscally irresponsible? The fees are £9,000 precisely because the government wouldn’t be paying up nearly so much for tuition fees. They could charge less and the government wouldn’t put in more. If it’s about wanting to pay the most tax, well that’s the first I’ve heard anyone wanting to pay as much tax as possible! Could someone explain this fuzzy, unclear, unhelpful term please.

Also on the BBC last week, Richard Bilton did a good job in a documentary entitled, “Who gets the best jobs?” of showing how the top positions and best-paid jobs go especially to those privately educated and from well-off backgrounds. In other words, as the cycle goes around, a certain circle of well-off in this nation are feeding themselves and the wealth isn’t getting handed out, or down, in the way that it could be. (That’s a very curtailed analysis but is essentially true.)

While Cambridge would offer a reduction of up to £3,000 to students from poorer backgrounds, I wonder if they realise that for some this really won’t be enough. A simple reduction isn’t enough to encourage those stuck in the poverty rut to get out and try. Poverty really can grip some people and it’s going to take more than that for them to be seen as being in anyway ‘fair’, economically speaking.

But then, maybe they feel they can’t commit to economic fairness, and really “commitment to excellence” IS  a way of saying, and to the middle class and to the wealthy elite of the UK and the world. I almost think that is their philosophy and if so, they should be clear about it. Gestures to offer a £3,000 reduction are really only formalities.

Still, I dare Oxford to be different…

When democracy isn’t exactly that. [Tuition Fees.]

I mean come on. I was listening to Moral Maze on Radio 4 the other night when driving home late. They were discussing ‘nudging’ – whereby the government use recognised, surreptitious practices to ‘nudge’ the thinking of the public in one direction or another. There were arguments for and against, and much of it explicity or implicitly around the issue of whether it was the government’s right or role to fiddle with the thinking of the public. Meaning that eventually, at some point, one of the illustrious debaters had to come out with a rough definition of what democratic government is: a collection of publicly-elected individuals put forward simply to represent the desires and wishes of the majority. It troubled me that in his voice it sounded like he had a little too much faith that what he was describing is what we’ve been getting in this nation recently.

I struggle to see that.

The coalition’s rosy honeymoon is over. Preceded only by a few noises within the Lib Dems already about compromise on policy in general, the recent issues surrounding the proposed rise in tuition fees at UK universities have really provided the first major challenge to the government since its election to power. Today the government voted in favour of the proposed rise in tuition fees.

As a recent graduate (York, Music, 2007), and one who has experienced financial struggle since then (something I say without shame or want of pity – I’m alive and well), my feelings naturally harmonised with the thousands of students and prospective students who I proudly watched take to the streets in such great numbers as to cause the huge media storm that we have seen. (Yes, I know about the violence. That’s a shame. Protests: good. There’s my sophisticated opinion on that one.)

I’m not about to sift through the mass of information and arguments to be made on either side of the debate and say ultimately what’s right or wrong, or perhaps ‘best’ or ‘worst’. Time will tell, presenting, I’m sure, it’s own surprises. But one can hardly help feeling that despite all the rhetoric around ‘fairness’ which has been the unmistakable watchword of the coalition as they make large budget cuts, there is something inherently unjust about lumping such great sums on those who are least able to afford it. Students have hardly been known as the most wealthy of citizens. It doesn’t take much to see that the government might be doing themselves a huge disfavour in putting a great many off of university study in this country.

Why, the pro-fees advocates might argue, are the government doing themselves a disfavour? These cuts are good and work well for graduates under this system (the £21,000 threshold etc.). People will come around to seeing this.

Well, o advocate, you’d better hope they do. Because amidst the great uproar (coming not merely from the streets, but from inside the Commons where there have been resignations and a few rebellions), it strikes me that though we have heard one or two debates in the media, and the protesting voice of Nick Clegg advocating the advantages of this rise in fees, the government could have done a lot more to quell the obvious strong national sentiment and lay out the facts as plainly as possible. I’m not saying they didn’t try. But it does seem that despite the protests that have been going on since last month, this has been pushed through without any further attempt to make things clear and amicable to student groups.

A couple of other observations. The Conservatives have managed to stay out of the firing line, to a large degree, perhaps sneakily. The issue has focussed on the Lib Dems, and their obvious turn around on their manifesto promise of not supporting a rise in tuition fees. Make of this what you will – they didn’t write that in prospect chiefly of a coalition government, nor perhaps had they quite anticipated the huge debt that faced the succeeding party (though surely it should have been in someone’s mind…).

New New Labour leader (I forget how he’s styled himself. I’m not sure I care) Miliband had a word or two for the Lib Dems in all this. Sorry, Ed, but whether or not it was to your liking or in your ‘style’, your party had a great deal to do with the massive debt. Hearing his advice I couldn’t help feeling that he was merely trying to establish his name, while he had some air to breathe, as a do-gooder, rather than as a genuine champion of the poor in this case. Maybe I’m just being cynical.

And a final observation. Reading one report earlier on the issue, it covered the opinions of the lecturer’s union, and of University deans and provosts. And the conclusion wasn’t overwhelmingly in the direction of the positive. You would have thought that the government, being a ‘democratically elected’ conglomerate, might find accord in some branch of society, even if no one much likes these cuts. But lecturers didn’t seem overly keen on the idea, and university and college authorities were also divided on the issue. No conclusion there.

Budget cuts have to be made. We all know that. It seems that with every cut announced, there is a group that doesn’t want that cut to go ahead – they all have their reasons why. But we have heard no stronger a protest than that which has come from the students these past few weeks. Putting the onus on those who are least able to bear it seems a bit harsh though. I’ve read the woeful tweets/facebook posts of sixth-formers I know lamenting the fact that, given they’re not able to afford uni, why bother at sixth form. Well, o advocate, if in fact it won’t be so bad for them, why don’t they know it? Why have the government not been doing more to steer public understanding that the next generation can go ahead confident that they won’t be lumbered with debt as a problem for years to come in their lives?

I’m sure everyone who reads this has lots of opinions and thinks I’m wrong on some things. That’s the way with these things. Like I said, time will tell. I hope that is satisfactory.

Word and Spirit

There is a prophecy attributed to Smith Wigglesworth which he purportedly gave near the end of his life, wherein he expressed that when the Word and the Spirit come together, there would be an unprecedented move of God which would bring us into a significant new phase of the end times. Some have made it the course of debate as to whether this was really ever spoken by Wigglesworth. But a reading of his sermons (of which many are in print) should help us to realise that at least the words are not too far out of line with his general statements about what God was doing with the church.

What he meant by this was that when the church really got a full hold both of the Scripture and of the Holy Spirit (rather than simply swinging one way or the other in its emphasis), it would be this radically balanced fusion that would facilitate a greater move of God than we have yet seen.

It is indeed true that especially since the enlightenment, we have seen churches and movements choose either to emphasise the authority of Scripture – and in turn inadvertently (or perhaps sometimes intentionally) rule out Spiritual activity in the church; or they have majorly emphasised the role and gift of the Spirit, at the expense of some Scriptural guidelines and doctrine.

This is a bit of a generalisation and the situation actually isn’t as polarised as all that in most of the UK (or indeed the rest of the world especially the post-enlightenment West). But we have gained this unfortunate legacy that comes with years of polarisation within the society itself overall.

These thoughts – I should explain – are not entirely of my own inspiration. I have just come away from a seminar where I was listening to a Christian clinical psychologist, Roger Bretherton, saying pretty much what I have said above, and some of what I will say below also. He referred to Wigglesworth’s prophecy and began to expound his thoughts on what this prophetic word might mean by distinguishing ‘Word and Spirit’.

His thoughts were that the church has divided these two by the different directions that its denominations have taken, in the same way that society has divided itself in many respects: into the objective and the subjective. The Word – the Bible, Scripture, and all the things that usually are associated with it like doctrine – is the object of the objective. It provides a standpoint, and firm and solid ground from which to view and do life. This is absolutely typical of the way that we view the Bible and it is not without truth or relevance. Jesus said that if anyone heard His words and did them, they would be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. Jesus’ words provide that rock for us.

The Spirit, on the other hand, has perhaps even more thoroughly become associated with subjectivity – in the negative with dodgy activities, Christian or otherwise, or with flaky people, or with false ministers; in the positive with the necessity to subject prophetic words and other things given by the Spirit, to the object of the Word of God.

Again this is not without accuracy. As my latter example hints, Scripture itself advises that prophetic words be weighed and tested, and so to be tested there needs to be some sort of measure, which Scripture is typically understood to provide.

As I have said, this diamteric distinction pervades our social and psychological analyses more than we perhaps realise. I remember when I studied Media for a couple of years, becoming aware for the first time of the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, understanding that the media had very little power to be objective, as a single camera shot or singly-authored article could in so many subtle ways hide things that the audience may not see. It could have all the appearance of objectivity but, even with effort, would not really be able to achieve it.

It goes too with the distinction between the logical and the intuitive, between the practical and the creative, between the arts and science, between the right brain and the left brain, between the masculine and the feminine – and I’m sure I don’t need to inform the reader of the constant tensions that can often be played out in societies because of the differences between these outlooks.

What is interesting to note, and what Bretherton began to touch on in his seminar, is that just as Wigglesworth prophesied a ‘coming together’ of these two things, so in society we are beginning to see worldviews depolarising, as disciplines and fields begin to combine understanding of the objective and the subjective, to the benefit of their fields.

This excites me because I have, in discussion with others, become aware of this myself. There is a caricatured picture provided by radical atheists such as Richard Dawkins, in which religion (that which is, in their view, subjective – or perhaps less, simply ridiculously unbelievable) is no longer viable and Science, in which everything is objective – measurable and quantifiable – is now the best means by which to understand life and the world. But this is far from where many disciplines are now at. Indeed within the field of science, one doctor by the name of Philip Kilner reports of how he found significant breakthrough in his area of cardiology because of intuitive, rather than quantified, research. His page can be found here along with a BBC radio interview which details how he came across his findings.

Faith Forster too has pursued some research into masculine and feminine brains – meaning not strictly brains belonging to men and those belonging to women, because there can be men who are quite feminine in their thinking and vice versa. But after a few years, many hours of counselling, and lots of thought, she was interested to find her conclusions confirmed by the research of another psychologist, who did an in-depth study into the hormonal balances and so on that affect the percentage to which a person is more or less male or female-minded – and the results in life habits and ideals. Her application of course in sharing her findings along with those of the psychologist, are that we need to work at becoming more balanced people in order to most understand one another and accommodate one another, and to lead healthy lives.

This to me represents the exciting shift which, indeed it is possible, even a prophecy from the likes of Wigglesworth might be hinting at. It involves far more than just conservative evangelicals, and way-out charismatics, coming to agree with each other. It involves our worldview shifting to understand that we can’t simply be content to understand life one way or the other. It’s not a case that either we just deal with life as evidence, examination and results tell us, or ‘go with the flow’ in a way that is entirely emotionally driven. Somehow we have to find ways to balance the two. I certainly think this can happen in church, with how we involve both the ministry of the Word and the ministry of the Spirit. But I think we can affect our society too by adjusting our outlook on life.

Radical Financial Equality

Is it achievable?

I’m just starting to realise where we’ve been and where we need to go in the church with regard to distribution of wealth. For a while I’ve had convictions borne out of passages like 2 Corinthians 8, which takes its cue in turn from Exodus and the story of the provision of manna. I think that it’s significant that when Paul addresses money in the church he compares it with such a famous story of miraculous provision from the Old Testament. We should expect that all that we have to steward financially is given miraculously by God.

The paradigm that he outlines is summarised by Exodus’ comment on the in-gathering of the manna: “He who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little had no lack.” (2 Cor 8:15 quoting Ex 16:18) It is acknowledged that initially there were some who gathered more than others, as continues to be the case today with the rich and poor (hopefully) meeting together in fellowship in the church. But what then needed to happen was a process of sharing, of redistribution of wealth so that everyone had enough, and none lacked. I think it’s this second part – the part that actually involves us doing something – that we’re not so good at.

But I’m coming more and more strongly towards the conclusion and belief that God’s desire is not necessarily to make everyone rich, as the prosperity proponents might say (no digging at them intended), nor that we should all be poor, as the money would have to be SOMEWHERE; rather I think the vision fits into the way He created the whole of humanity to be: equal. As Paul said in the previous verse to the one just quoted above: “at this present time your abundance becoming a supply for their need, so that their abundance may also become a supply for your need, THAT THERE MAY BE EQUALITY…” (2 Cor 8:14) and then he goes on to quote the verse already given above.

However much some preachers and churches and doctrines may not like it, the poor do not seem to cease being around, as Moses made clear in the Law, and as Jesus made clear. It is not God’s heart – those statements always come in the context of wanting to deal with the poverty. But neither is it His heart that we all get rich and horde our riches to ourselves. Those who gather much must share with those who gather little, because they equally were shown the greatest generosity and gift in Jesus’ death for them. In THAT sense, we are all undeniably, humbly equal, owing it to Him who paid for us all to love all those others that He purchased in the way that He loved us.

More on this to come, I am sure – in the areas of social justice and the financial generosity of the church, and in other areas of equality, and what I believe the Bible has to say about that.

Breaking out of the spiralling vortex of capitalism

One of my most recent and sustained developing interests has been in the area of economics. More and more I have found issues in this realm to thoroughly occupy my mind, especially when it comes to addressing the needs of the poor. From a Christian perspective this no doubt takes a slightly different route than it would among non-Christian economists because my concern is fundamentally driven from a belief and understanding about the created order whereas a secularist approach probably comes from a simple desire to achieve balance in a presently extremely unbalanced world. I make no apologies for the direction I choose and my commentary will be fused with my Christian belief.

All the same the observations I make refer to secular as well as Christian responses to the present economic challenge (as well as response to the Western economy in general). This is because, unsurprisingly, across the board there seems to be a dissatisfaction with the way things are and a persuasion that things need to change. This finds voice especially in the outcries expressed through the media at huge bonuses handed to bankers, and at the swindling of expenses by MPs. Enough commentary has probably been done on WordPress alone to fill several volumes and so I do not intend to make further judgment on these matters here, I simply point to them to indicate the attitude that permeates public opinion.

Most recently I have noticed a book entitled Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet by Tim Jackson – which, incidentally, I came across by flicking through a copy of the Big Issue. It seemed appropriate that an article about this book appeared in a magazine sold to help support the homeless and those hard-done-by. I haven’t really noticed what the general thrust of the publication is before but this has made me somewhat penitent of my usual attitude of buying a copy if I want to “be nice” to the Big Issue man, then throwing it away when I next get it out of my bag (confession time).

I may read the book. It seems to do what it says on the tin, and according to reviews doesn’t seem to do too bad a job of it, perhaps weighing in a little heavier on the diagnosis than on the proposed solutions. You can preview it on Google Books of course, at http://books.google.com/books?id=jarKLCDcePYC&dq=prosperity+without+growth&source=gbs_navlinks_s

What has also interested me ever since about this time last year, is Christian response to the economic situation in light of the Bible. Of particular note among recent efforts to outwork Christian principles within a secular economy is that of Kim Tan, author of the recently published The Jubilee Gospel (which I am presently reading), who has had some sort of key role in the establishment of what is known as the Transformational Business Network which seeks to work in the developing world not through the means of aid, but rather through the means of resourcing and supporting enterprises in those countries so that they can begin to have their own sustainable economic environments which they will be able to operate themselves. A quick survey of their website(http://www.tbnetwork.org/home/index.php?flag1=1) seems to show that they are doing rather well.

I don’t doubt that this sort of move would begin a process which could radically reshape the global economy. Perhaps my view is over-simplistic, but it seems that where we have “developed” countries (which operate with a centralised system) providing largely only aid to “developing” nations, the latter will in a way also be subject to the moving and shaking that goes on in the centralised systems of the nations that are providing that aid. However, if you empower that country to begin to operate sustainably under its own economic model and terms, you withdraw its dependency on the former, monolithic systems which, as we’ve seen over the last year, are no less susceptible to damage for all their size.

I also have in my list of books to read a book by Kim Tan and Brian Griffiths called Fighting Poverty Through Enterprise: The case for Social Venture Capital which (from my brief glance) fairly straightforwardly outlines the purpose behind the Transformational Business Network through an analysis of present-day statistics and case studies.

If you’re wondering where this present argument is leading, the answer may be “not very far” at this stage because, as you can see, I have a fair bit of reading to do. I’m also not an economist and so all the reading I can do can only stretch as far as my spare time and my understanding will allow. However my heart is deeply interested for the sake of the poor and those who have suffered as the rich have got richer. Having had my own share of financial pressures in my time – pressures which were comparably microscopic compared to those of many who struggle in this nation alone – I have seen enough to be concerned that the treacherous imbalance of society (which as we know is not purely economical but also social) might somehow begin to be turned on its head through whatever means we might have within our grasp.

I was challenged earlier today when another man from church was sharing with a group of men that were gathered for breakfast, from Romans 12, and verse 18 where Paul exhorts “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” (NASB) Maybe it was the way he said it, but suddenly the words “if possible” rang out with new meaning and emphasis: if there is any remote chance, any slim possibility that I can see in a situation, for peace to be brought into it and lived in, then I should work to achieve that peace. And if you know anything about the Bible and the way that Jews thought from way back, “peace” would not merely have been about being friendly; the term shabbat which we know as “Sabbath”, together with the idea of shalom,  encompassed ideas of social, economic and spiritual peace and rest – a holistic peace which touched every area of human experience.

So this is what I’m going after. I’m interested also in the Jubilee as a concept in which, essentially, a national but de-centralised (or rather non-centralised as it was never central in the first place) economic system which allowed for growth and development was nevertheless “capped” and kept from growing out of control, through the regular redistribution of wealth through the cancellation of debts and restoration of property to original owners. In it too was fundamentally written the idea of rest with each Jubilee year being prescribed as a year of rest (which of course would have happened alongside the usual Sabbath years – a year of rest every seven years – also prescribed for the nation). As a whole economic model now it is obviously impossible to introduce, but its values and principles could and, according to the conviction of Kim Tan and others, do still prove to be useful.

So, apologies for the inept conclusion to this present discourse. Watch this space, as I shall hopefully keep my blog updated from time to time with my findings and feelings about this whole issue. Ultimately what I hope to achieve is to find some new and creative ways in which Christians (well and any concerned citizen) can seriously get involved in this activity of redressing the balance for the good of humanity.

The Church in the Credit Crunch

I believe the church has an unbelievable moment opening before her with the sliding economic situations in the West. I do not want to state too much presumptively, but I must write what I feel prophetically the Lord is saying about this season.

For a while I have seen a kind of ‘Daniel season’ coming upon us but I did not necessarily know how much it would manifest corporately, or whether it was just for me or our church in London.

Well now, hopefully, I see it a little clearer. Perhaps you can guess what I mean by a Daniel season. It is a time when things seem on the whole pretty bleak, and yet a remnant are raised up to have favor with men and those in authority in order to bring about restoration and change. Daniel was an incredibly godly man (one of my absolute favourites in the Old Testament) and yet he was honoured with incredible position in the Babylonian empire. I find him comparable also to Joseph and Esther. When he and his friends received persecution for their godliness, they were delivered and then actually raised to have greater esteem than before! Both their intercession and the administration of their roles in a godly fashion influenced Babylon heavily with the leaven of the kingdom and ultimately led to great spiritual breakthrough which triggered the movements of Israel to return to the land and fulfill the Lord’s many promises of restoration throughout the prophetic Scriptures.

How much do we, the church, need to understand the book of Daniel and how it pertains to us today! Surely the rearing head of Babylon in the book of Revelation ought to remind us that though the empire may no longer exist in the natural, it very much rules the world’s way of thinking. At some point, she is going to crumble, and those in the world who depended on a Babylonian mindset for life will weep over her.

There is a Scripture I have been chewing over quite a bit of late which I believe SO pertains to this season that we are in:

“For thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘Once more in a little while, I am going to shake the heavens and the earth, the sea also and the dry land. I will shake all the nations; and they will come with the wealth of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory,’ says the Lord of hosts. ‘The silver is Mine and the gold is Mine,’ declares the Lord of hosts. ‘The latter glory of this house will be greater than the former,’ says the Lord of hosts, ‘and in this place I will give peace,’ declares the Lord of hosts.” (Haggai 2:6-9)

Is this ‘the shaking’? I would be too narrow minded to say THIS IS IT! But it is a part of it I am sure, we are certainly of the kingdom that cannot be shaken, therefore let us have grace and gratitude whereby we may serve God acceptably (Heb 12:28). Because the world of course does not serve acceptably, except to the spirit of mammon and of Babylon, in extortion and injustice. True enough we the church are warned of the problems of mammon and the danger of worshipping riches in the book of Matthew, but in the book of Luke we are exhorted to be wise stewards of that which has been entrusted to us financially (16:1-13). Surely the Lord wants more than just for us to be individually responsible with making sure we tithe and give to charity. What if we too might be raised into positions of authority as Daniels of this age, to administrate wealth justly and through that to express the Lord’s heart? Just as with so many sacrifices in the Bible, so there is a resurrection, I believe, for our attitude to money; for once we have put away the desire for us to be rich in this age, recognising that the true treasure is that which is to be stored up in heaven, and that mammon is a god to be despised, THEN we can be entrusted with more because the Lord knows that we personally have no desire for it but that we do know how to handle it effectively and justly.

Our church is presently considering ways of financially supporting the community of London that we have direct contact with, as the credit crunch really crunches. I was so pleased when I heard this because we, the people of heavenly citizenship and heavenly focus, ought to be absolutely able to do this in all faith that Yahweh Jireh can provide abundantly in order that the world may witness that there is a God whose dwelling place is with men in the church. No glory comes to us. We do not keep any riches for ourselves (if our desires are right of course and we are accountable). Simply all the glory goes to Him and every help to the world as a witness that ours is the Everlasting God whose supply does not run out.

I was blessed also when I received a personal gift I was very much in need of, of quite considerable sum. For one it was an answer to prayer, but for another I knew that those who gave it were really sowing in faith, rather than just giving out of their surplus. It is a testimony to me more than of just a prayer-answering God, but that His people are starting to be equipped in the area of faith for what is about to be brought to our door – the ability to give generously, hilariously, and sometimes beyond our ability because of the wonderful provision of the God we serve.

This is not the prosperity gospel. This is simply a prophetic evaluation which I humbly submit to you, praying that the Lord will bring to light all that is truth and do away with anything unnecessary.

Scriptures (for reading/meditation along these lines): Genesis 41; Esther; Daniel 1, 7, 12; Haggai 2; Matthew 13:24-43; Luke 16:1-13; Hebrews 12; Revelation 18.

Where does Capitalism end?

In a bit of a daze at the end of a hard week it appears a little foggy to me to be able to answer this with clarity now but I can at least safely say I can see two answers.

At dinner tonight with friends, talk first turned to the swiftly closing Mayoral elections for London and the political ramifications inherent in voting not for policies, but purely for candidates, as policy seems almost immaterial in the much wider game that is being played here in London.

Following from this we engaged in a rather convicting discussion which revolved around consumerism, choice, the Smorgasbord we seem unable to avoid in every day life. The missionary couple from Nepal standing bewildered and thoroughly shocked by the culture as they take their first trip to whichever Supermarket was closest, they and others like them I know can tell that tale.

One of our friends, a doctor, professorial, philosopher-theologian highly engaged in debating current matters of justice, reflected on how a short trip to Burma had given him a beautiful taste of an incredibly different life: “What you did,” he said, “was to get food for the kids, and clothes on your back. That’s it. And everything goes at around 8 miles per hour, at this sort of biological speed – it’s wonderful.”

What he stated reflected just a small part of the overall distinction between what we know to be ‘normal life’ in our part of the world, and that in the (I suppose) ‘non-westernised’ parts. My own short trip to Thailand holds a similar mirror to the issue, blogged about a short while ago.

That makes one of my questions, where do we go from here? I believe Capitalism will not last – a statement which I know of course requires ample justification which I hope to provide in further bloggings in the near future. That means that either I follow it to the bitter end, try as I might to believe that it might work for me, even though we know from a short examination not only of today’s situation but of recent history, that we are getting worse and not better, economically.

Or, I go the way of the nomadic Jew who once worked in a carpenters shop only then to quit, give up everything, and live a radically different life from the rest of the world around Him, giving up possessions, money, often not even having anywhere to sleep. Yet somehow making it, and going on to become without doubt the most influential Man in history.

?

I shall blog more on this subject when I am decidedly more awake and have pondered this thing further.