Blog

The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett

Our group was unsettled by the analysis and conclusions outlined in this book.  It shows that from an analysis  of many countries, that those with a more even distribution of wealth have less societal problems and so overall, the whole of society – including the more wealthy – is better off.  The challenge is how to re-balance wealth when incomes have a very wide spread.  According to the author’s research (from UN data), NZ has one of the largest wealth gaps between the poorest and richest 10% of the population. The authors suggest two options

-          Increased taxes on higher incomes

-          Compressing the income earning gap

The latter seems less feasible than the first.  The social unrest seen in UK, Greece and Spain this year reinforces the impression that all is not right with unfettered capitalism and the ‘market’ is not always right or yields outcomes of benefit to all.  A disturbingly good read which should prompt a rethink by all people especially those who are ‘religious’ and those with an ability to redress the gap.

Ian Harris 23 Nov 11

A pre-election general discussion

Particular concerns that the politicians are not focusing on: eg increasing inequality, asset sales can equal asset stripping as per railways and Telecom, ethical investments, employment – where are the jobs?, greater support for pre-school education and health care at no cost (we spend much less on children than other developed economies with more costly consequences later on), concern that we will trade away Pharmac under US pressure to gain a Free Trade Agreement, need to promote a greater sense of social responsibility.

Prayer for People

Creating Loving God we pray for our world,
We think about countries that are at war
We think about countries that are suffering from drought or floods.
We pause and ask for your peace

Peace to the land
Peace to the seas and rivers

We remember before you Aotearoa the land of the long white cloud
We pray for Christchurch
for the people who are living on the edge of their indurance
We pray for the children who will most likey carry scars hidden within them.
We pray for the elderly and confused
We pray for the mayor and cauncil and all who are makes decisions that effect others lives.
we pause and ask for your peace

Peace to the people
peace to the land

We remember family and friends
we give thanks for the people in our lives who have carried the hope when we have struggled.
We pray for the sick
We pray for the youth of our country espically those involved in taking their own lives
those who are struggling, either physically or mentally
we pause and ask for your peace

Peace to the people
peace to families

We give thanks for Jesus
our Brother, Saviour, Friend
We give thanks for each other
We give thanks for opportunities to gather and pray.

we ask these prayers in Jesus Name
amen

Son of God – BBC Part 3: The Final Hours

This is the third and final episode that we’ve watched in this series.  The presenter, Jeremy Bowen, painted a number of scenarios to support a fairly literal interpretation of the record of the week as portrayed in the Gospels.

He noted that Jesus had targeted the sick, the poor, the disabled, and ‘all those regarded as sinners’.  Pilate would not have tolerated any sign of trouble making by the Jews.  Caiaphas was ‘in Pilate’s pocket’ as a means to keep a lid on any protests.

The upper / guest room where the Last Supper was held, was likely to have been in a house of a wealthy owner and supporter. The garden of Gethsemane is half way up Mt of Olives.

These interpretations were then followed by explanations of sweating blood (under extreme stress), a claim that Judas handed Jesus over to the Temple Priests just as Jesus intended. This was supported by the claim that Jesus could have escaped but didn’t try to.  This was followed by literal investigations of the physical details of the crucifixion and the resurrection.  These attempts at a literal interpretation of the Bible didn’t impress me; the Roman occupiers were very well practiced at crucifixions – it was a slow, painful, tortured death as a public deterrent not make trouble or the same fate will happen to you! A physical resurrection raises more questions than answers and contributes nothing to the Christian message of new life, fresh starts.

Ian Harris  5/10/11

Son of God – BBC Part 2: The Mission

This started off with a claim to have found where Jesus was baptised as its the site of a 3rd century church which is interpreted as being part of a shrine as people would have remembered where John was baptising. Exposing and removing the corruption in the Temple was Jesus’s mission. So rather than an initial direct challenge he built a people power base from those on the margins of society which he then used to challenge the Temple priests. His main weapon was proclaiming ritual cleansing for those otherwise outcast. This outraged ordinary Jews but incensed the Priests as it removed their ‘skimming’ operations from the Temple cleansing process/practices. The Good Samaritan story is more political swipe than good neighbour!

DVD Son of God – BBC Part 1: The Real Man

This series takes a fairly literal interpretation of the biblical texts and uses recent archaeological finds and 2002 era computer animation, to place the stories in real places, time and context. So we see Caesarea the port built by Herod and where he lived, a creation of the stable where Jesus was born (and the actual shrine) and an explanation for the star that guided the 3 wise men! (Some basis in astrology plus Jupiter in the dawn sky).

Matthew 15:1-20

Every culture has its way of marking out what is sacred, special, to be respected, and what is ordinary and needs no special respect. For instance, in Maori and Pacific culture you may eat specially consecrated food like communion bread and wine in a place of worship, but you don’t eat ordinary food there. Palagi culture doesn’t mark its sacred space in that same way, so we have no particular issue with eating in a worship space. I’m sure that the Pacific families that are part of our church can point out a few ways that Palagi do mark sacred space though. Some of them will be the same as Pacific people and some not – move the chairs, touch the organ, bring the drum kit and synthesiser, forget to light the candle, shift the bible, let the service go on a bit long….

When a couple marry and move in together, (or move in together and then marry)- they are suddenly confronted with a whole lot of differences in the way things are done. They have taken on not just the person they love but, horror of horrors, the way that that person goes about life as well. In her family they know about dirty clothes baskets, in his they use the floor for that (or so he says). He works to a budget, she sees something she likes and just buys it. One of them squeezes the toothpaste tube at the bottom, the other just squeezes it.

There are all these things, that all their lives, they have just assumed that that’s the way it’s done- it has never crossed their minds that it can be done another way. It is very easy to guild the way we do things with words like logical, best, sensible, obvious, right, proper….

So the negotiations begin, in that mix of love and frustration, understanding and argument, Negotiations that will hopefully lead to some workable compromise in which both win some of the time, and the essentials get done one way or another.

Whether it is a matter of different cultures being brought together or different people being brought together, it is a chance for all to sort out what is really critical, and what isn’t quite so important and might even be let go. This may not feel like a blessing in the cut and thrust of negotiations, but it is. The chance to recognise what is core, and what isn’t, is one we probably wouldn’t have had had, had we encountered only more of our own assumptions and conclusions instead of difference.

Segments of Jewish culture in Jesus’ day made a very definite division between what was holy and what was ordinary. The Hebrew and Greek words for holy both have a strong sense of being set apart from ordinary use and dedicated to sacred service.

There was the sacred and the profane. Profane in this sense doesn’t necessarily have a negative connotation. Our word ‘profane’ comes from two Latin ones- fanum which means temple and pro which means before. Profane means something that is outside the bounds of the sanctuary- it is before it, not inside it.

The New Testament equivalent is koinos ( you may have heard the word koinonia-fellowship, community- they are both from the same root). Koinos means communal or common-something that comes into contact with anything and everything. Ordinary, unfussy, profane… and because it could have been in touch with anything it was regarded as ceremonially impure or unclean.

Something that was koinos (ordinary) was approachable and usable without any ceremony. That was not the case for anything that was holy. There special attention had to be paid, precautions had to be taken. You did not mix the sacred and the profane. You did not bring anything that was potentially unclean, including yourself, into a holy place.

The Pharisees were the holiness movement of the day. Wherever possible they avoided contact with anything that might render them unclean. They were fastidious in their observance of Jewish ritual law. Within their own circle and outside of it, they gained a lot of kudos for going above and beyond the basic legal requirements for ritual purity. They were seriously holy. They prided themselves in not only following the Torah (the legal requirements of the Hebrew scriptures) but also in following the oral commentary that rose up around that law and came in the end to be written down as the Mishnah.

Their protest about proper hand washing is a case in point. The Torah only stipulates ritual hand washing for priests. On the strength of their oral tradition the Pharisees had adopted the practice whether they were priests or not. Then on the rationale that Israel was a holy priesthood in respect to the rest of the world, they sought to impose the practice on the wider community. This was not an argument about public health; it was an argument about who was holy and pure. It was an argument about authority.

The Pharisees were very sure that there was one route to holiness and they were the ones who knew it and practiced it. So anyone who wanted to dedicate themselves to God had better get in behind. There was no room for negotiation for they had the mind of God, or at least the wisdom of the elders, on this.

Jesus responds by giving them a flea in the ear about a particularly glaring short coming in their brand of holiness. Then he calls the crowd and makes a statement that scandalises the Pharisees and astonishes even his own disciples.
Listen and try to understand. It is not the food that you put into your mouth that makes you unclean and unfit to worship God; the bad words that come out of your mouth are what make you unclean. Mt15:10-11

That’s a direct hit on Jewish dietary law, one of the major ways in which Jews observed their faith and honoured what was sacred. You can imagine any Gentile hearing or reading Matthew’s gospel in the days of the early church going, ‘Yes!’ It meant, you see, that dietary law was cultural, not core. ‘It is what you say and do that are far better indicators of the state of the soul than what you take in by way of food,’ Jesus explains to the disciples.

It is not the things that come from outside that taint us; it is what comes from ourselves- poor attitudes, economy with the truth, stories told to justify theft, infidelity and violence. That is the stuff that makes us less than what we should be. If we are scrupulous about external religious observance yet neglect the nudges of God’s Spirit within us to accept God’s love and forgiveness ever more deeply, and to allow that same love and grace to spill over into our living then we have missed the point. We are not a plant planted by the Lord at all, only a weed that robs other plants of the sun and the nutrients and space that they need to grow. We make dangerous guides, because we have no real idea of where the track is or even what it looks like.

The high priests of computing say ‘Garbage in, garbage out,’ but when it comes to humans Jesus says ‘Garbage out, garbage out.’ What comes out is indicative of what is inside. Faith that lacks integrity is nothing. But faith with integrity… that is something else. That is God’s treasure hidden in the ordinary, earthenware vessels of our lives. That is the sacred touching and transfiguring the profane.

Test of Faith Part 3: Is there Anybody There?

No notes

Test of Faith Part 2: An Accident in the Making?

Covered somewhat similar ground as Part 1. Science hypothesises compared with the authority of the Bible. Did not support the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old – this idea itself is only about 100 years old. Genesis is not a text book! Science demonstrates a designer; intelligent design as too complex for random evolution. This was reinforced by the observation that very few genetic modifications are better than the original and therefore evolution only proceeds along a relatively few lines. So cancer, earthquakes etc are a necessary part of evolution and therefore prevent ‘paradise on earth’ not possible because of human nature. [Hence I suspect they would claim that ‘paradise has to be somewhere else!] Wealth has been based on cheap energy => impact on climate.

DVD Test of Faith Part 1: Beyond Reason

This records senior scientists explaining how they can believe in a fairly conservative interpretation of the Biblical texts and also work at the frontiers of science. Their viewpoint was supported by their belief that the universe had to have some reason to exist and the underlying order of the natural world suggested a creator/an under lying intelligence, did God light the ‘blue touch paper’? They discount ‘God of the gaps’ as greater scientific understanding will narrow those gaps over time. ‘Nature can’t prove God’s existence, but is consistent with belief in god.’ A multi-verse is no threat to faith.