As I write this I should be listening to Kemi Badenoch on the BBC's Today Programme, but she appears to have nothing to say of any consequence - and is actually making a virtue of that fact - so I thought I would wrote about an earlier part of the same programme.
A vicar - Rev Jane Manfredi - celebrated the practice of charitable giving at Christmas, whilst noting that Justin Welby had his gift to the Childrens' Society returned.
She talked about the merits of giving to food banks, to relieve poverty, to children in care, and more. And of course there is merit in doing that.
But whilst she acknowledged the pressure from advertisers to spend on other things, what she never asked is why food banks are necessary, why there is poverty and why children are in care?
There was no hint of questioning the system that we live in.
She said alms-giving was a fundamental part of Christianity.
If she's read the Gospels (and I have, many times, without claiming to be a Christian in any conventional sense as a result) she'd have realised that questioning the power structures within society is much more fundamental to Christianity than alms giving ever was, or should be.
Why did she so fundamentally miss the point? Could it be that she is missing the point that Welby's downfall hints at, which is that the power structures in society are all wrong?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Each one of the quotes reflects on existing power structures and their continuation. I’d also note that Dickens (popular @ this time of year) whilst profiling terrible aspects of Victorian society – offered no proposals for change (one supposes doing that would mean fewer book sales.).
Hélder Câmara, Archbishop of Olinda and Recife: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist.
Enlightenment is a destructive process. It has nothing to do with becoming better or happier. Enlightenment is the crumbling away of untruth. It is seeing through the facade of pretence. It is the complete eradication of everything we imagined to be true. :Adyashanti.
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” — George Orwell
The current crop of politicos are functionally incapable of taking any of the above on-board – to do so would be to acknowledge the total & complete failure of what passes for current political systems.
Thanks, Mike.
Spot on Mike.
But one of the things I reject about the church and our society is an obsession with suffering. Whether it is the rich and comfortable suffering from their knowledge (and increasingly this seems to be the exception) that there are those who are poor (guilt) or even the poor themselves (their struggles).
Do we tolerate the poor because reacting to them salves our conscience? Do we use the poor to show our virtue? Is that why they exist? And if so, who is watching? Who is ticking off our virtue when it is used?
The cleric Richard describes above seems atypical.
The concept of suffering in religion as if ordained by a God or as some sort of penance (I thought Jesus had died for us anyway?) acts like a pair of buffer stops on a railway line closed down by Dr Beeching. It stops the journey of discovery dead. And some seem happy with the fact that they do not have to go any further. Too much to take in I suspect.
Heaven on earth it seems is impossible. It seems that we must die in order to be happy. Yet we are also told that we will be judged. On what, pray tell? That invites us living in a heavenly way now does it not? Yet He who told us how to live – our greatest prophet – was executed for daring to speak! Like those compliance and risk officers were sacrificed by the City for example.
The contradictions are immense and telling and tie us up in knots and reminds me of another belief system we suffer under. Tell me now: Is Christianity the precursor of Neo-liberalism?
I know that this is a bit naughty at this time of year but ………….. I mean, really? Treat my bewilderment as an affliction if you would.
Christianity as a Church has not been a wild success.
As teaching it’s better.
But the Church’s teaching is wildly selective.
Relevent article in the Guardian this morning:
“Welcome to Britain’s Victorian Christmas, where volunteers in Santa hats fulfil the basic functions of the state”.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/23/britain-victorian-christmas-charity-state-social-economic-problems?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
Agreed
The power structures within society are not saying anything is wrong because they control the media outlets.
I do so object to all the charities that are doing things that I expect my government to be responsible for: health, including social and hospice care; child support of any kind; education; environmental protection and the list goes on.
I feel even more unhappy when looking at the management structures and salary levels of those running such organisations.
The growth of a sector that’s now more professionally run, offering well remunerated career opportunities for the budding executive looking for that elusive ‘feel good factor’.
Professionally ran?
You try complaining to one. Not good.
Many people have been saying exactly this, that the power structures in society are all wrong. It does not take a deep analysis of how our political economy works to arrive at this conclusion, though it is evident on almost any level. Simply looking at the outcomes achieved is perhaps the most obvious. I’m glad you are saying it Richard. Some people listen to you.
Thanks
Isn’t there something about the love of money being the root of all evil?
The time for overturning the tables of the moneylenders has arrived.
If I still listened to the BBC News & current affairs output, then I would have been shouting at the radio for exactly the same reasons.
The danger of charitable work, is that it is so rewarding, that the warm glow that comes from helping others can often dull ones sensitivity to the causes of the injustice that has led to the suffering being alleviated.
This is true both on an individual and an institutional basis. As I have spent nearly 30yrs of my working life employed in the charitable/faith sector, I’ve seen this close up, in individuals & institutions.
But that’s not the whole story. You are right to highlight power structures. So many very nasty scandals recently have highlighted how the protection of the institution takes precedence over protection of people (human beings with the same needs and rights and value as me).
Some examples:
Corporations & councils v Grenfell residents.
Child victims of sexual abuse v BBC, the Church, schools, children homes.
Haemophiliacs with AIDS v the NHS/Gov
Hillsboro families v Police & football club shareholders
Sub-postmasters & their families v the Post Office “brand”.
Human BSE victims v the food industry
Palestinian victims of war crimes v the geopolitical status quo.
Yet here is the puzzle – behind the perpetrators of each of these structural injustices are human beings, each bearing a greater or lesser degree of blame as individuals, for making bad moral choices. What went wrong with THEM when they decided to go for more profit, to bury a report, to conceal something from a board meeting, to lie in a public statement, to remain silent when they heard someone else lying?
A personal story.. Years ago, I once heard the Chief Veterinary Officer on the radio, telling the public that there was NO evidence that BSE infected cattle were entering the food chain. I knew this to be untrue, as I was involved in the detection of such animals on the way to abbattoirs via livestock markets, and the prosecution of those involved, a job which his Ministry were paying me for, so I wrote to him and complained, only to be told the numbers weren’t “significant”. I still have the correspondence.
He lied on air. IMHO he should have been struck off. But what happened to his own personal moral compass that day? And to all the other moral compasses of individuals in the other institutions?
Maybe in a few years time this question will be irrelevant, when it is AI that makes all these decisions. It’s already happening in Gaza, with AI targeting software weighing up proportion of civilian collateral damage against the significance of the individual “terrorist”/combatant being targeted. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/4/ai-assisted-genocide-israel-reportedly-used-database-for-gaza-kill-lists
What has happened to our morality?
My fellow-Christians so often seem to think morality is only to do with sexual matters, fussing about sexual specks in other peoples eyes, while ignoring the structural injustice RSJs in our own eyes.
I must remember to consider my OWN complicity in structural injustice, as a citizen, a consumer, a polluter. Even my silence and inaction have personal moral implications.
Thanks
I concur absolutely. Especially your last paragraph.
Thanks for this Richard. In my view, yes, they are wrong on several levels.
I’m interested in discussions for addressing that.
They will be happening here, over time
I have the ultimate sovereign fiat currency question. How many Sterling currency units (Pounds), have been created and currently exist; outside of the currency issuing Treasury? And; in what form cash, reserves, Bonds and various interest bearing deposits public and private. There is an ICAEW chart for a starter, https://www.icaew.com/insights/viewpoints-on-the-news/2022/sept-2022/chart-of-the-week-uk-public-debt
On the basis that the Treasury, its National Loans Fund (the magic money tree) and its wholly owned Bank of England are, in reality, one and the same entity. The extra cash the tree creates appears in the Consolidated Fund Account https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/consolidated-fund-account-2023-to-2024 as “Deficit funding from the NLF”. Also at https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/ruus/pusf
The gross national debt https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/bkqa/pusf Has recently dropped from £3.3 trillion to £2.8 trillion after the Treasury sold a lump of bailout Nat West shares. Those shares were a nice little investment earner, not a debt! So, is this not the greatest Smoke and Mirrors scam ever?
I am really not sure what you are asking
Sorry….but this is data that is not leading me anywhere
My question was in the first sentence. What is your estimate and how did you get to it?
When the government spends, it creates “reserves”, deposits in the “reserve accounts” of financial institutions that qualify for a “reserves account” at the BoE. The total of notes, coins and reserves peaked at £1,072 billion at Feb 2022. Quantitative Tightening has reduced that to £824 billion so far today; on its way down to circa £400 billion.
The quantity of “reserves” is the liquid spending money available to households; but, it does not tell how fast those liquid funds are circulating in the economy. That is, how many times a Pound gets spent in a fiscal year. The US FED measures it as M1V and M2V. It shows the propensity to save and not spend and the risk of a spending explosion that would boost inflation. The UK has no such metric.
BTW, Banks do not lend “reserves”. If an individual pays a bill to someone at another Bank, the equivalent reserve amount moves with it. Then, both Banks balance sheets continue to balance.
Well done Richard, you are the voice of MMT in the UK. Alas, the chances of getting an MMT Chancellor of the Exchequer are slim, but I would vote for you.
With apologies – I have not made an estimate – and would use the data you have if I was to do so
And I confess it’s not what I p-lan to do this evening
Sorry
I’m not religious, but had a strict Christian upbringing. One of the hypocrisies I observed from my time attending church was how politically reactionary most religious leaders were, to the point that they would likely shun and even persecute Jesus were he ever to actually return
I think so
It is an argument I had with my father, often
He most definitely did not love all his neighbours as himself, as I ponted out on occassion
@ Andrew,
If the he repeated the narrative, as picked out from a couple of the gospels: born in Bethlehem, his family taking flight to Egypt; that would make him a Palestinian refugee.
Evangelicals could do with reflecting upon that.
We all could. The complete failure of (most) Christian churches to condemn the evil of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank is absolutely shameful.
Richard,
You seem to have an understanding of The New Testament.
How about something on Economics as preached by Jesus?
Be appropriate for this time of year
Merry Christmas!
Listen out over the next few days
Luke’s gospel is good on money. Start with s’thing seasonal, the Magnificat (Mary got expelled from Labour for it)…
Luke 1.46, context, woman in matriarchal society under imperial military occupation, puppet king, religious leaders about to try to kill her baby, family flee as refugees. Enjoy!
Sorry should read Patriarchal society!!
Although commentary on this blog focuses on the Uk – which is fair enough, conditions and “power structures that enable such conditions” are just as bad in other countries for those low on the social ladder.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/dec/23/france-champagne-growers-allegations-trafficking-court-case-vineyard-workers
One conclusion to draw from the article is that in France slave labour exists – has done so for some time and the state has been slow to react/turned a blind eye (ditto Italy – tinned tomatoes? mostly picked by mafia-controlled slave labour). I quite enjoy champagne – but I won’t be buying French for some time to come. Something similar happens in the UK, companies use 3rd parties to recruit agricultural slaves and governments claim that it is all well regulated. vile.
There is a considerable body of Catholic Social Teaching that does question the political and economic systems.
See for an overview –
https://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching
Or
https://cafod.org.uk/pray/catholic-social-teaching
Or
https://togetherforthecommongood.co.uk/
I agree.
I have read some if it. Much of it is quite good.
Thank you Paul – I have picked up – through working with the church in community projects – that the clergy embedded in our communities are closer to what is needed and experienced on the street than the upper echelons of their churches. They do some sterling work.
And thank you Richard for differentiating between teaching and church structure – interesting.
Here is a list of some of the papal encyclicals over the last 100 years that deal with economic and political issues (from the rights of workers to form unions, decentralisation of politics through the principle of subsidiarity, to the environment, etc).
https://togetherforthecommongood.co.uk/about/catholic-social-thought
She is part of the power structure. Why would she criticise what she is part of and a beneficiary of?
Charity in one sense helps uphold the current systems. Without them of course there would be more suffering but crucially the system would be exposed too for what it is. So in a sense charity does the system a great service not just the unfortunate.
Manfredi is Church of England -the state church – headed by King Charles.
As some here have pointed out it is part of the power structure – so clearly she could not question the causes of poverty and suffering – that would be ‘political’ which the monarch and his church cannot be.
The C/E CAN be political, like every church and charity, and SHOULD be political. Otherwise it is irrelevant. Being established hasn’t prevented that, although career ambiitions may influence ambitious clerics looking for preferment.
It can’t be “party” political though.
The C/E has produced (like many other churches) useful documents prior to general elections. When I ran local GE hustings on behalf of Churches Together, we used them. Usually the largest hustings in town.
Occasionally churches provided key political challenge in Thatcher’s time, in another thread I mentioned Archbishop Robert Runcie,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_the_City
and Bishop David Sheppard (Liverpool)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sheppard (books such as “Bias to the Poor”(1983) & “Built as a City” (1974).
& his RC colleague at the other end of Hope St, Archbishop Derek Worlock
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/they-deserve-to-be-remembered-3534126
Of course the Tories objected to clerics “interfering” in politics, but the church felt that if it had nothing to say about structural injustice, then it might as well pack up & go home.
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/religionandethicsreport/mrs-thatcher-and-her-clashes-with-the-churches/4621152
Then of course, there are the contexts of the very significant Anglican involvement in the apartheid struggle in S Africa with Archbishop Desmond Tutu),
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Tutu
the assassination of Archbishop Janani Lewumb in Uganda by Idi Amin,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janani_Luwum
and the Catholic struggle against fascist military rulers in S America, including the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero at his altar steps in San Salvador.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%93scar_Romero
I’ll stop there, but don’t let anyone tell you that churches can’t do politics. They can, and do.
Sadly, sometimes they support oppression rather than resisting it.
There is a copy of Bias to the Poor on my shelves. I have never forgotten the message.
A good overview of Church State relationships for England and Scotland can be found in the recent House of Commons Library briefing paper, called ‘The United Kingdom constitution – a mapping exercise’ by David Torrance, published on 18 December, 2024. (https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9384/CBP-9384.pdf – after an earlier draft of 26 November 2024 http://civilservant.org.uk/library/2024-HoC_Library-The%20_UK_Constitution.pdf ) This briefing paper claims it ‘”maps” (or summarises) the main elements of the United Kingdom’s uncodified constitution’ and ‘is intended as a navigational aid to what can often appear an endless and impenetrable mass of constitutional information.’ (It is of course a snapshot in time, with issues of devolution and local government likely to change things soon).
The place of the Church and State in England and Scotland, respectively, is particularly considered in section 7 (but also in other sections too, as in the consideration of the House of Lords and the ‘Crown’ (coronation oaths) in England, for example). It is worth having this oversight if considering the possibility of disestablishment, but of course The Church in Wales and The Church of Northern Ireland are not established, and this arguably helps them work better to work ecumenically and prophetically (seeps https://www.cytun.co.uk/en/church-and-society/ or https://www.cytun.co.uk/en/racial-justice-network/, ).
The Church of England has engaged in political critique on many occasions (famously so in The Church and the Bomb Report, Faith in the City report, Church Urban Fund, etc.). But so too have churches that are not established, such as Methodist and URC partners (see https://jpit.uk/), and of course, The Society of Friends (https://www.quaker.org.uk/our-work) — though not all Quakers today would still welcome the dogmatic-identifier ‘Christian’. Establishment per se doesn’t make the established church better at being prophetic, it might make it too cautious, but it might possibly help its voice be heard in the corridors of power.
Thanks
Sadly I’ve never found a religion that starts with the questions what is consciousness and why does it exist. We don’t know the answer to the latter but the first ought to tell human beings we don’t have the freedom “not” to choose. This of course applies to bacteria that live within us. Largely it does its choosing through chemical messaging which constantly seeks a balance between collective action and adventurousness. Human beings use money messaging but don’t do that well when it comes to seeking balance as bacteria. Certainly when it comes to religious leaders explaining what Heaven is like they actively avoid choosing to describe what it’s like. How though can Heaven exist without choosing?
It might be better to read Samuel Beckett than the Bible? At the end of the day, he seemed to live his life in the service of life for others, lived relatively modestly, accepted and pointed out the absurdity of it all and quietly slipped off his mortal coil when his time came. He also left his mark, and I cannot say that we are worse for it?
Not a bad epitaph.
“consciousness”?
I think there’s plenty to chew on in that area, between the turkey and the Christmas pud, with John 1.1 “in the beginning was the word…”, seasoned with a helping of “Cogito ergo sum”, and Genesis 1 “the earth was without form and void, and the spirit of God hovered over the deep”.
Does it ANSWER the question of where consciousness comes from? Maybe not, but it certainly gets the ball rolling. And theologians have spilled plenty of ink (or used miles of typewriter ribbon!) on the subject since – in several religions.
Here’s a question I’ve never resolved… what was it like before I knew I existed/was conceived & developed a brain/was born?
What might it be like at the other end, when I no longer have a working brain?
When you’ve cracked that one, do let me know!!
(It might affect global interest rates.)
Jesus’ main beef seemed to be that the established Church at the time had lost it’s way and was more concerned with ritual and money making than helping the needy, hence turning over the money changers tables in the temple. In that respect he was an early version of Martin Luther. The Anglican church in particular could be accused of a similar loss of focus today. I think it was in Diarmaid MacCulloch’s tome ‘A history of Christianity’ that I read that the central Christian message of charity/poverty, ‘It’s easier for a rich man, etc…’ was watered down in order to be more appealing to wealthy Romans in the 6th. century. That seems to be where the rot started.
The phrase you want is “The Constantinian settlement” (relating to Constantine I’s “conversion” at the Battle of Milvian Bridge AD312 which he won, having decorated his army’s shields with the Chi-Ro symbol- a victory which led to the Edict of Milan in 313 and to a whole can of worms about the relationship that the followers of Jesus had with power, still bubbling on (see Syria, Russia, Poland, ireland, USA etc)
At that point the church became acquainted with power. It’s power that’s the problem rather than ideology, once the persecuted minority win the war (or emigrate to a new country) they become oppressive. Why?
Baptists in the UK have never had power although we got close to it during the Commonwealth, esp in the New Model Army.
But look what happened to us once we got to the southern States of the USA. We became racist exploiters of our fellow human beings and the worst sort of tyrants. Our “Free Church – non Constantinian” ideology didn’t protect us, our power shouted louder than our ideology – follow the story of the Southern Baptist Convention in the USA, and compare with the story of persecuted Eastern European Baptists. It’s like 2 totally different religions. (I have 25yrs of personal links with the latter).
A Baptist theologian who wrote on this (his PhD) was Nigel G Wright (who taught me theology).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigel_G._Wright
Also a long term Labour party supporter, although I don’t know what he thinks about the last 8 years of Labour history.