I write a quarterly column for Preach magazine, in which I explore a significant word or phrase in the Bible, or a theme or section of Scripture, and the ideas that it expresses. I have written for them on:
- the phrase ‘Word of God’
- the theme of ‘Mission’
- the meaning of ‘Apocalypse‘
- the ministry of ‘Healing’,
- the question of ‘Welcome’,
- the biblical understanding of ‘Justice’,
- the biblical view of creation
- what the Bible means by the term ‘church’.
- what the Bible says about grief and grieving.
- what is so good about the Old Testament?
- Why should we welcome the stranger?
- How can we rejoice in an imperfect world?
- What does scripture say about disability?
- What are the scriptural roots of our understanding of preaching?
- How do we make sense of the psalms of conflict?
Here I explore what Scripture says about poverty—and the paradox that we should never have it, but it will always be with us.
Scripture says two contradictory things about poverty: first, that it should never exist; and secondly, that we will always have it. How and why does it say this, and how do we make sense of this contradiction?
Poverty should never exist
The biblical narrative repeatedly insists that our world has been created by a good God who provides abundantly for his creatures. This insistence begins on the very first page of Scripture; the creation account in Genesis 1 rings with the refrain ‘And God saw that is was good…it was good…it was very good.’ The picture here is of a world bursting with life and dynamic energy, in which provision is made for all. And it reaches its completion and climax when God creates humanity, male and female in God’s image, who are intended to be ‘fruitful and multiply.’ As they exercise the dominion of God over the world, it will supply all their needs.
This refrain is repeated throughout the Scriptures, with the clearest expression being Ps 104.
He makes grass to grow for the cattle, and plants for people to cultivate—bringing forth food from the earth (v 14).
The celebration of wine and bread that follows found its way into Jewish prayers of thanksgiving, and will have been words that Jesus used at the Last Supper when he ‘took bread…and took wine…and blessed’ God. This regular and reliable supply for all our needs is not only a reflection of God’s gracious character but also a testimony to his faithfulness.
Jesus reaffirms God’s abundant provision in his teaching about trust in Matt 6.25–34. If God provides for the birds of the air and the lilies of the field, how much more will he provide for us! Jesus invites us into a great exchange—we swap our anxiety about life for trust in God’s provision, and knowing his care for our needs then allows a focus on his kingdom.
Poverty will always be present
In tension with this clear emphasis, we see another consistent theme. Though the earth was intended to provide for all our needs, because we have turned from God, now ‘through painful toil you will it food from it…it will produce thorns and thistles…by the sweat of your brow will you eat your food’ (Gen 3.17–19). Scarcity of resources is a sign of a world gone wrong—and where there is scarcity, there is then competition, and the strong trample the weak.
Alongside the celebration of God’s provision in the wisdom literature, we also find despair at the inequality and inequity in the world around us. The wealthy and the wicked
…have no struggles; their bodies are healthy and strong. They are free from common human burdens; they are not plagues by human ills (Ps 73.4–5)
The psalmist’s complaint that seeking God and his righteousness is no protection against poverty and misfortune sounds like a commentary on contemporary wealth disparity.
If the writer of Proverbs tells us that God will prosper those who honour him, then the writer of Ecclesiastes replies ‘I did, and he didn’t.’ As a result, ‘all is vanity.’
If you see the poor oppressed…and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised… (Eccl 5.8)
When Jesus responds to a sign of extravagant love with the saying ‘The poor you will always have with you’ (Matt 26.11) he was neither being resigned nor fatalistic. Rather, he was citing God’s command to his people to always make provision for those in need, since they will always be present amongst us in a fallen world (Deut 15.11a).
Responding to Poverty
This then leads to our response to this tension—the provision of God, yet the presence of poverty. The simplest command that we find in Scripture is the most practical:
Therefore I command you to be open-handed towards your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land (Deut 15.11b).
This is underpinned by a theological reality: the earth and all its wealth belongs not to us, but to God (Ps 24.1). We therefore have no right to accumulate its wealth for ourselves, but are obliged to share what we have been given (1 Cor 4.7). This is the principle behind the Jubilee redistribution of wealth in Lev 25; the whole land belongs to God, and he shares equally. At every point, Scripture struggles with the idea of unequal distribution of wealth.
But poverty has even greater theological significance. Because wealth leads to complacency, and cuts us off from realising our dependance on God, the poor become iconic of trust in God. They are the ones who know their need of God—and point us to the poverty of the human condition, a poverty that Jesus himself took up (2 Cor 8.9). To be human is to be dependent on God, so the comparatively ‘rich and poor’ (Rev 13.16) alike face his judgement.
God’s coming to the world brings a great reversal, when the poor who trust in God are lifted up, and the rich who ignore God and neglect the poor will be put down (Luke 1.51–53). As we care for the poor amongst us, we anticipate that great day.
Though the earth was intended to provide for all our needs, because we have turned from God, now ‘through painful toil you will it food from it…it will produce thorns and thistles…by the sweat of your brow will you eat your food’ (Gen 3.17–19)
I note that God does not say that the Earth will not supply our needs; just that we will have to work for it.
It’s important to remember this and fight back against those horrific anti-human Malthusians who say we need to limit (or even, God forbid, reduce) the human population.
The Earth has resources aplenty; but we need to work to use them more and more efficiently.
“We [Fallen humanity] need to work to use them [the Earth’s natural resources] more and more efficiently.”
The only way this is going to properly work (in a globally unified and organized manner) is in an earthly, Millennial Kingdom ruled over by Christ and His saints.
It’s interesting to note that the initial, natural expression of ‘Christianity’ in Economic terms was a form of ‘Socialism’ (Acts 2:44-46; cf. Luke 3:11)).
The only way this is going to properly work (in a globally unified and organized manner) is in an earthly, Millennial Kingdom ruled over by Christ and His saints.
No, absolutely not. Planned economies — which is what you’re talking about — do not work.
To “S”;
But presumably, a ‘planned’ economic system of whatever kind(s), would work under the auspices of King Jesus, and the Saints ? (Rev. 12:5; Rev. 2:26-27; Dan. 7:27).
But presumably, a ‘planned’ economic system of whatever kind(s), would work under the auspices of King Jesus, and the Saints ?
Um no? There are many problems, practical and moral, with planned economies, but one of the biggest is that the amount of information that would need to be processed to make it work is simply impossible to capture in a single place. The only way to make it work is with distributed processing, ie, price signals, and market responsiveness.
Otherwise everyone starves.
Dear “S”;
If there is going to be a future millennial earth (as Scripture seems to suggest; cf. Rev. 5:10; Luke 22:29-30; Matt. 25:31-32), then Christ and His glorified saints will be ruling upon that earth in “supernatural bodies” (Gk. somata pneumatikon; cf. 1 Cor. 15:44). May this go some way to eliminating or mitigating, any logistical challenges that you alluded to in your previous posting?
May this go some way to eliminating or mitigating, any logistical challenges that you alluded to in your previous posting?
Well, if supernatural bodies don’t require food it would certainly go a long way towards removing the problems of starvation, yes.
I’m not sure this is an accurate representation of Acts 2:44-46. In a pure socialist system, no one has any personal property which they are at liberty to sell, or proceeds which they are free to dispose of as they see fit. In short, the church would have been unable to act as they do in Acts 2 had they existed within a pure socialist system.
In fact Peter’s response to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:4 underscores this point: “Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal?”
To Richard :
I think we can say that the primordial Christian community certainly had some kind of ‘socialist-type’ ethos (apart from Ananias and Sapphira), as
“The whole group of believers , was united, heart and soul; no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, as everything they owned was held in common…None of the members was ever in want, as all those who who owned land or houses would sell them [as needs arose ?]…”.
(Acts 4:32, 34; New Jerusalem Bible).
The earliest Christians didn’t stop working, but they held everything in common.
I don’t think so, unless you wanted to describe the ethos of any functional family as ‘socialist-type’ – in which case the word ‘socialist’ doesn’t really signify a lot. To me it seems much tighter to say that the believers are acting as one family, which of course is what they are. The introduction of the ‘socialism’ category doesn’t describe their behaviour any more tightly, but rather, as I note above, is divergent from how they behave in at least two significant ways.
Richard –
The social principles exhibited by the first Christian community was based on the idea that people should work together for a common good, rather than pursue their own individual, self-interests. In this way, everyone genuinely looked out for everybody else, and the spiritual well-being of the whole community was prioritized. The mental attitudes displayed by Ananias and Sapphira were, of course, antithetical to these principles.
The later phenomena of Christian Socialist Movements represented a noble attempt to apply these principles to modern industrial life.
The social principles exhibited by the first Christian community was based on the idea that people should work together for a common good, rather than pursue their own individual, self-interests.
Which is of course antithetical to the socialist idea that everyone should be forced to work for the good of the state.
“S” –
The concept of :
“From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”;
may, theoretically, stand of chance of working under the direct earthly rule of King Jesus, and His co-rulers.
The concept […] may, theoretically, stand of chance of working under the direct earthly rule of King Jesus, and His co-rulers.
Maybe, but that’s not socialism.
Yes, everything was good, very good but not everything was Garden.
After banishment from God’s presence we all are poor before God.
Yet, 2 Corinthians 8:9.
Jesus left all the glories and riches to become poor in our place that we may become rich in him, sharing his blood- bought, inheritance with us, that we may share with others. He is the, our, true elder brother.
No pride, no boasting, in ourselves, but only in him. We depend on God for our very existence, and are to acknowledge that by asking Our Father, and His, for our forgiveness and his restored kingdom, – the extended and world expansive, Eden,- our daily provision, from the Bread, Waters and Tree of Life and uncreated Light in our darkness.
One of the toughest realities of our fallen world is that even the results of our endeavours to live well, or at least sufficiently, in material terms are distributed unevenly. As well as hard work, good and bad luck undoubtedly has a significant part to play in outcomes. Even as Christians we cannot take agreeable material circumstances (if that’s what we experience) as evidence of God’s approval for the way we are living.
The psalmist who says that, when the people praise him, ‘the earth will bring forth its increase and God… will bless us’, must surely have been speaking for God’s chosen people as a whole rather than proclaiming a universal law of earthbound economics which would apply to every individual equally.
So what should the Christian churches be saying in today’s public square when we are staring down the same kind of barrel that faced Europe in the 1930s/1940s? The use of a controversial set of climate change predictions and restrictions on free speech as psyops to corral people into accepting a world where everyone ‘will own nothing and be happy’ is the very antithesis of a godly response to human want or inequality. God’s people should be among the first to sense where this is leading, how far we’ve already come, and how utterly antithetical it is to the Christian gospel. Is not the predominant silence of the Christian churches in the face of tyranny a betrayal of faith?
The following conversation between two intelligent and engaging heads is well worth the time taken to listen. It’s infinitely more enlightening than the videos of General Synod, July 2023!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41elK59iygE&t=22s
” luck”, Don? Now that’s an interesting theological, (scriptural or not?) idea.
Do you have a problem with ‘luck’, Geoff?
Whether you call it chance, fortune, circumstances, destiny, lot, portion (all synonyms in my online dictionary), it simply describes both good and bad things which may happen over which we have no obvious control. I tend to think it’s a part of human experience which is necessary to the existence of free will.
Were God to remove risk of good and bad luck, would it not involve the kind of micromanaging of events which would inevitably also remove morality, creativity, and responsibility and therefore the chance of the kind of relationship with him that was initially described in the Garden of Eden? It was the one who buried the talent he was given (thus avoiding the possibility of bad luck inherent to trying to multiply it up) who received the condemnation of Jesus.
Whether you call it chance, fortune, circumstances, destiny, lot, portion (all synonyms in my online dictionary), it simply describes both good and bad things which may happen over which we have no obvious control.
I don’t know about Geoff, but my issues with those terms is that they all imply that not only do we have no control over those events but that God has no control over them either. And that’s not true: everything that happens, happens at least with God’s permission (because God could have stopped it from happening).
So if something happens ‘by chance’ that means that even if God didn’t deliberately intend for it to happen, He at the very least allowed it to happen.
That to me is the problem of introducing the term ‘luck’ into a theological context. We experience ‘luck’, but God doesn’t.
“S” –
So, what you’re basically saying, “S”, is that events of genuine, ‘sheer ‘happenstance’, may occur, but God allows all such ‘random’ phenomena to occur – and can work through them, for good ? (cf. Romans 8:28).
events of genuine, ‘sheer ‘happenstance’, may occur, but God allows all such ‘random’ phenomena to occur – and can work through them, for good ?
That’s what I wrote.
Lovely.
Thank you, “S”.
Hello Don,
Yes I do, but it would be a lengthy and theological one about the sovereignty of God and, as mentioned in an earlier article comment by R C atholic, Happy Jack, the Providence of God. It is systematic theology that Ian doesn’t engage in.
And in the OT in Isaiah 65:11 luck/fortune and fate/destiny are denounced as worship of false gods, Gad and Meni.
As it happens, as an adult I was confirmed into the CoE by a Bishop on Trinity day and given a Good News Bible with his inscription, “Good luck in the Lord” which provoked some astonishment in a lay Reader.
Perhaps your Bishop was alluding to Ecclesiastes 9:11 ?
I doubt it Pellegrino. The diocese has a history of liberal Bishops.
It is doubtful that he would have done a word search, and if he was mindful of the text, it is suggested that he hadn’t understood the whole of the book of Ecclesiastes, its genre (Wisdom literature) and message and purpose – seeing, putting forward a view of, what life is like, *under the sun* without God in it, including the passage of time and seeming, unexpected, unanticipated, unplanned randomness: wisdom and folly, all ending in death. (It is something of a contrast with the wisdom literature of Proverbs which leans heavily on just rewards).
It has nothing to say about Providence and God’s sovereignty, it is submitted.
Nor is it a contradiction of God speaking in denunciation through the prophet Isaiah.
It was a quote from the last verse of Psalm 129 but I think only to be found in the Book of Common Prayer translation of that psalm. For an Anglican bishop to quote from that source would seem pretty reasonable to me!
Thank you, Geoff.
Your points on Ecclesiastes have been noted, and acknowledged.
I remember, some time ago, seeing the Roman Catholic, Conservative Politician, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, being asked on television what his favourite book of the Bible was. He seriously replied “Ecclesiastes,….I think.”
( Amazing ! 🙂 )
“controversial set of climate change predictions” – what do you mean? There is almost universal scientific support for anthropogenic climate change. We have seen in the past week the warmest week on record, we observe ever hotter summers, warmer winters, changing weather patterns.
We in affluent countries in northern latitudes are realtively insulated for the worst of the effects, in that our climates are moderate and so warming is, usually, manageable, and we have the wealth to adapt. Our bretheren in generally less affluent lands in equatorial regions are suffering from extreme heat, drought and desertification. Our concern for the poor surely extends beyond giving financially to the impact of our lifestyles on others.
“controversial set of climate change predictions” – what do you mean?
Presumably the ‘predictions’ some people make that climate change will lead to the plant becoming uninhabitable, or the extinction (or near extinction) of the human race — which have no basis in fact but are routinely used to justify everything from throwing paint on artworks to insane governmental policies that will cost trillions to no discernable effect.
“some people” sounds like a random selection of guys in the pub, however I presume by this you mean the global consensus of experts, the IPCC https://www.ipcc.ch/.
Some parts of the planet are already becoming uninhabitable. The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have increased and the average temperature of the planet has increased. The effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on the retention of heat are basic physics and were covered in my A-level course in the 1970s.
“some people” sounds like a random selection of guys in the pub, however I presume by this you mean the global consensus of experts, the IPCC<
No, I mean nonsense like the scaremongering headline of this article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/aug/01/climate-endgame-risk-human-extinction-scientists-global-heating-catastrophe
There is absolutely no chance of climate change causing the extinction of the human race.
Some parts of the planet are already becoming uninhabitable.
And some parts of the planet that were previously uninhabitable are becoming habitable.
Well yes indeed. The issue is not whether or not climate change is happening (it has always happened) or to what extent humans may be contributing; it’s about intelligently and realistically developing applied science and implementing engineering solutions to enable us to live successfully with whatever changes may come along.
My concern is that instead we are seeing ‘climate’ (and also future ‘pandemic’) scaremongering as a means of deceiving people into accepting a dystopian future which is driven by an atheistic ideology quite as evil as anything seen in the 20th century. Unfortunately the digital technology now available to achieve that future is far beyond anything that was available then. There’s some very dark political stuff going on here, none of which is remotely concerned about democratic accountability.
So is the Christian church in the Western world just going to join in with the headless chickens unwittingly allowing themselves to be chased back to the stone age, or will it finally wake up and challenge the evil vision involved? I’m not in favour of the ‘Benedict option’ (quietly hiding away); we Christians need to be out there fighting; and that means we need to know what’s going on, to understand it, to understand what’s behind it and offer coherent arguments in opposition to it.
We caused and continue to cause climate change which is actually just a symptom of humans wrecking God’s creation. We’ve known for about 130 years that CO2 emissions will lead to global warning. Although it is human technology that has led to this, thankfully we also have the technology to counteract it. Time will tell if we succeed.
In my Parish Don, I would say people are going along with it. In a Deanery meeting on this topic I asked what purpose was served by us closing our coal fired power stations while China builds ever more of them – blank faces. There were discussions about digging up the Churchyard to instal underground heat pumps – my husband was a plumber and worked out the capacity and vast space to be heated together with the cost and sanity began to return.
I do remember when this country was polluted as my childhood was in the 1950’s in a northern industrial city. All the buildings were blackened with soot. We had regular “smogs” like the Chinese have now. This is yellow fog – the buses stopped running and you had to walk everywhere with a scarf around your mouth and nose. In the 1960’s the Clean Air Act was passed and smokeless fuel developed. There are no more smogs and all the buildings have been cleaned up. Rivers now have fish in them and canals are being restored.
We need to be good stewards of the earth – we are not in charge of the earth! We cannot change the weather. “The earth is the Lord’s and every thing in it”.
Hi Tricia
Yes, there are a great many (most?) Christians in the UK who have yet to wake up to the enormity of what’s already happening and what’s rapidly coming down the tracks; and this means that, like the Christians in 1940s Europe, they will be God’s prophets who failed to sound a warning. It’s the subject of Ian’s piece (the poor) which nudged me into broaching an issue which some will still be thinking is ridiculous.
Sadly it is the poor, the old and the marginalised who will be the first victims, and we Christians should be aware and care about that.
I hope you get this comment because I’ll offer another link, this time to Larry Alex Taunton who is an academic historian in the USA but, more importantly, a Christian apologist who has made it his business to be informed about what’s going on (and what’s behind it), and has started (a few weeks ago) posting informative videos for people everywhere across the western world. He’s also extremely well connected and has debated with such people as Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins among many others.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OCJXz2880U
Unfortunately the digital technology now available to achieve that future is far beyond anything that was available then.
Fortunately, though, the people trying to use this technology to reshape the world are just as incompetent as they ever were (trust me — they are). So they won’t succeed in their nefarious aims.
Of course that doesn’t mean they won’t do a lot of damage trying, or that we don’t need to fight them; we do.
I’m just saying don’t get scared thinking there’s some vast shadowly super-competent conspiracy controlling everything. There ain’t. There’s just a load of venal deluded idiots who think they’re a lot smarter than they are, same as always.
To PC Peter :
In the future, God will destroy those who are destroying the earth (Rev. 11:18).
To Tricia;
It’s one of the ironies of the 1950’s that whilst there were hardly any motor vehicles upon our roads, the air pollution was very high.
It’s one of the ironies of the 1950’s that whilst there were hardly any motor vehicles upon our roads, the air pollution was very high.
That’s about as ironic as rain on your wedding day.
Hi Don.
“The psalmist who says that, when the people praise him, ‘the earth will bring forth its increase and God… will bless us’, must surely have been speaking for God’s chosen people as a whole rather than proclaiming a universal law of earthbound economics which would apply to every individual equally.,.”
Not “earth bound economics”, no, but perhaps a principle for individuals and for legitimate political authority in our management and distribution of the goods of the earth and wealth.
There’s a concept in Catholic social teaching called the “universal destination of goods”. It refers to the teaching that the earth, its resources, and the fruit of human labour, is meant to provide for the individual needs of all people.
This is rooted in the belief that God intended all people to share in the goods of this world. This does not imply repeal of private property rights or socialism. Nor does it imply that every person is entitled to an equal or identical amount of goods. It does mean, however, that it would be unjust to hold back from a person the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter and clothing.
God created the earth and gave humanity dominion over all its creatures and resources (Gn 1:28-30). This was not intended as a form of domination but rather of stewardship so the earth would continue to serve the needs of men and women through all generations. The earth, its resources, and that which human work produces is meant to provide for individual needs and also for the common good. The inherent dignity of all human persons requires that their fundamental needs are met.
Thanks, HJ, and it’s always good to hear from you!
The rainbow sign of God’s covenant with humanity after the flood may have been hideously (but only temporarily) subverted by an atheistic pressure group, but I remain confident that he has and will continue to remain true to his word.
However, considering the role that a pretty devastating famine later played in the enslavement (but subsequent deliverance) of God’s chosen people, that covenant can not have meant that there would necessarily be reliable harvests equally distributed around planet Earth every year. So I think that taking God’s word and tying it down to our own exacting precision of what it should mean (rather than the simple truth of what it says) can sometimes be a bit risky. As the years go by, I tend to find that faith supplants the need to understand everything to perfection (as if we mortal creatures ever could!).
So, saying ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I cannot fully explain’ may actually signify increasing recognition of the unfathomable greatness of God rather than diminishing of faith or a failure of coherence when it comes to apologetics or interpretation. Nevertheless, the business of learning and thinking is essential to faith. So I’m not suggesting we should ignore great wisdom from the past or wise teachers and prophets from the present; I’m merely suggesting that if we want to increase in wisdom, we may be surprised to find that humility increases apace too. I actually find that a wonderfully radical thought. I wonder if it makes God smile too?
Apologies for a rather generalised response to your comment.
Thank you. HJ has missed engaging with your thoughts and contributions.
“As the years go by, I tend to find that faith supplants the need to understand everything to perfection (as if we mortal creatures ever could!).”
Indeed. However, HJ would say that faith and understanding go hand in hand.
Your ‘thoughts’ are in line with one of the greatest intellects in Christian philosophy and theology, St. Thomas Aquinas. St. Thomas’ most significant work is his Summa Theologiae. He worked on it from 1266 through 1273. Then, when he was nearly finished, Thomas underwent a revelation so intense that, as he himself explained, “The end of my labours has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me.” He completely stopped writing, leaving his last work incomplete, and died three months later.
There’s a lesson in there for us all.
On the other hand, this doesn’t mean leaving our intellects at the door of the church. St. Anselm’s motto is “faith seeking understanding”, a favourite of HJ’s school Divinity teacher. Anselm is not hoping to replace faith with understanding; nor does he believe our limited intellects and language can fully grasp or explain the unfathomable mysteries of God. Faith, a gift from God, for Anselm is love for God and a drive to act as God wills. He describes the sort of faith that “merely believes what it ought to believe” as “dead”. So “faith seeking understanding” seems to mean something like “an active love of God seeking a deeper knowledge of God.”
As Jesus says, echoing Deuteronomy 6:5, we are called to “’Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'” (Matthew 22:37)
To Happy Jack :
“Looking after everybody, so that everyone has the necessities of life such as food, clothing and shelter !”
Just so, Happy Jack !
Which reminds me – how well do you think that the Governing Conservative Party has been doing in this area ?
Well, HJ doesn’t envy the power and responsibility they hold to make difficult decisions in the circumstances we face as a nation.
how well do you think that the Governing Conservative Party has been doing in this area?
It would be nice if the governing party were in any way conservative, wouldn’t it?
To S:
Just as the Labour Party forsook the economic interests and social conservatism of the working man and espoused metropolitan liberal ideology, so too the Conservative Party has given up its support for small businesses operating in a free market and espoused much the same metropolitan liberal values which are very much in line with the global elitists who are now exerting so much influence.
One striking element of those values (ideology if you like) is estrangement (separation, fear, and even loathing) from the natural world which is a logical consequence of the atheism which lies at their heart. It’s impossible to ignore the hand of the Creator in the natural world and to recognise his image in humans which he created. Thus their vision and policies represent an attempt to take God’s place in controlling the natural world on the one hand and restricting people’s freedom to access and replenish their minds and bodies from it on the other. So you get ’15 minute cities’, travel restrictions, digital IDs, digital financial control of the individual, global medication diktats, substituting vast factory production of food ingredients for normal agricultural production etc.
These things are sold as ‘saving the planet’ and ‘convenience’. But that’s part one of a bait and switch operation: part two is an inescapable totalitarian nightmare. To be fair, they’re no longer even hiding it if people take the trouble to look; the problem is that most people are too complacent or too fearful to engage with the stark reality of what’s already creeping in on us. I take your earlier point that what happens will be subject to human incompetence; they’ll make huge errors even on their own terms. But the human cost will be enormous even if their plans go off half cocked – particularly so for the poor. We Christians should never lose our gospel priority for the sake of our temporary earthbound politics but I think in the present situation we have to attend to both – or at least some of us are called to do that, and we should not be silenced or vilified (as were God’s prophets in earlier times) for doing it.
Thank you Don. I will read the link. I began to question issues when I was shocked that the churches were locked in the covid period. Every Sunday morning I circled the church in prayer and ended in prayer at the East window. On Pentecost Sunday I heard praise music being played and later found that our vicar was very disturbed at being locked outrun his church and could not stay out on Pentecost. At Easter I set up a cross in my front garden as I live on a through road.
This has been a worldwide attack on Christian nations and it continues with the UN now making statements about taking religious exemptions away – we will comply with the new world view!
I did not take the “vaccine” as the lack of testing concerned me. My husband did have one dose and I waited in the car for him. It felt to me like an apocalyptic scene as people filed towards the building. We have had so many funerals this year – not known before to be having several funerals per week in the summer in a village church.
May the Lord awaken His People.
it is not.seen that the article, nor anyone in the comments has shown any indication of subscribing to the Benedict option. The Good News, option yes, which circumscribes and limits the bad news option in all its manefestations.
Possibly, like a lot of others, I’ve never heard of Benedict’s options, Geoffrey.
Have they got anything to do with Romans 8:28 ?
Hello Pellegino,
It’s been coined by Rod Dreher in the USA as set out in his book of that title.
Here is a lengthy review of the book. Others are available.
https://mereorthodoxy.com/book-review-the-benedict-option-rod-dreher
Here is the basis of the Benedict Option:
Dreher believes that given the profound crisis of culture (which has affected the Church as well), we cannot look to mainstream institutions for our future. A new “dark age” is coming. Instead of relying on existing institutions, Christians need to form intentional communities that embody our Christian faith and in which we are willing to face the consequences of going against the stream. It is from such institutions that real cultural change will occur.
Here’s Bishop Robert Barron’s summary:
“Christians today, Dreher urges, should acknowledge that the cultural war has largely been lost and should stop spending time, energy, and resources fighting it. Instead, they ought, in imitation of St. Benedict, to rediscover, savor, and cultivate the uniquely Christian form of life. This hunkering down is expressed in a variety of ways: homeschooling of children, the creation of “parallel structures,” which is to say, societal forms of resistance to the dominant culture, the opening of “classical Christian schools” where the great moral and intellectual heritage of the West is maintained, the beautiful and reverent celebration of the liturgy, the revival of a sturdy ascetical practice, a profound study of the Bible, the fighting of pornography, challenging the tyranny of the new media, etc. Only through these practices will Christians rediscover who they are; without them, Dreher fears, Christianity will become, at best, faint echo of the dominant secular culture.”
His thought on this are here:
https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/barron/the-benedict-option-and-the-identity-relevance-dilemma/?queryID=98074f0f4875231b5a141be498d44fbc
Happy Jack :
Thanks for your comments, Happy Jack.
How does Happy Jack view people like Rod Dreher, who ‘jump ship’ away from Roman Catholicism to another branch of Christianity. Does Happy Jack regard this behaviour as a grave sin, a venial sin; or possibly, no real sin at all ?
Thanks for the link to Rod Dreher’s book, Geoff.
Rod Dreher has to follow his conscience in this and answer to God. He could have made a worse choice! HJ would have preferred it if he had joined one of the Eastern Churches in union with the Bishop of Rome (like Michael Warren Davis).
Dreher was raised a Methodist and in the early 1990s “swam the Tiber”. In 2006, he joined the Eastern Orthodox Church. His main motivation seems to have been the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church.
Eastern Orthodoxy is a good Church adhering to Traditional Christian beliefs. It has valid sacraments, excellent liturgy and HJ appreciates their emphasis on personal spiritual growth.
HJ hopes and prays the Catholic and Orthodox Churches will one day return to full ecclesiastical communion.
Thanks, Happy Jack –
for your comments on Rod Dreher.
Happy Jack may be pleased to know that a copy of “The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible : New Testament”, is available online (without downloading) at :
https://archive.org
The said New Testament has an unusual rendering of Romans 5:12.
God bless you, Happy Jack.
Excellent and succinct. Thank you, Ian.
The temptation for all Christians when discussing this subject is to line up behind the customary diagnosis and preferred response of our political tribes (left or right), rather that allow the Biblical writers to speak their own corrective word.
To Tim;
What the first Christians said not :
“What is mine, is mine; and what is yours, is yours.”
As long as we remember there are a significant number of ‘poor’ people who have no interest in Jesus, just like their ‘rich’ equivalents.
REFS. Geoff
July 12, 2023 at 4:56 pm
Thanks Geoff for Rod Dreher article. very thought provoking.
I would endorse his reference to CS Lewis work “The Abolition of Man” See the full text here
/archive.org/stream/TheAbolitionOfMan_229/C.s.Lewis-TheAbolitionOfMan_djvu.txt I think, one of his best works.
Thanks for the heads up Alan. It is one of Lewis’s books I’ve not read, though I much prefer paper books.
As for Providence I have John Flavel’s book, The Mystery of Providence.
You will also know that John Piper’s book, ‘Providence’, described as his magnum opus, is freely downloadable, ( just as he makes many of his books) here:
https://www.desiringgod.org/books/providence
It’s a shame John Flavel was a Calvinist …. Still, one supposes he had no real choice and it was meant to be!
[HJ can’t include emojis for some reason, but if he could it would be the smiling face with sunglasses]
Why, HC? It is a question of scriptual truth, not tribe, is it not? Otherwise it can be reduced to an error of category and dismissed ab initio therebye missing out on some chewy and juicy ruminations and intellectual stagnations, both, at once, faith challenging and building. Soli Deo gloria.
It’s a question of the interstation of scriptural texts.
Have a read of this:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=146
HJ would recommend the full book – nothing beats holding a book – but this is a good overview:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=214
Hello Alan,
If you are interested there is a free download, in different formats, of John Flavel’s book – the language is of its time- here:
https://www.monergism.com/mystery-providence-ebook
HJ’s comment got lost in moderation – two links posted.
It’s about our understanding and interpretation of scripture.
It’s a question of the interstation of scriptural texts.
Have a read of this:
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=146
HJ would recommend the full book – nothing beats holding a book – but its not an easy book to find.
I would endorse his reference to CS Lewis work “The Abolition of Man” […] I think, one of his best works.
I remember when I first read it, I thought the first two chapters were spot on, but the third he’d gone off the sci-fi deep end — not that it was wrong, you understand, but that it was over-extrapolating towards the dystopian.
Now, of course, that chapter seems possibly the most perceive thing Lewis ever wrote.
It’s a shame the fuller passage from Deuteronomy Is not given because this makes Jesus’ words clear about our Christian response to poverty. In saying “The poor you will always have with you,” Jesus was quoting from a well-known passage of the Old Testament. Everyone hearing listening to Him would have understood:
“If among you, one of your brothers should become poor, in any of your towns within your land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother, but you shall open your hand to him and lend him sufficient for his need, whatever it may be … For the poor you will always have with you in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’”
(Deut 15:7-11)
Reading Jesus’ words in their original context we can see that these were meant to spur generosity towards the poor.
Some wonderful avenues to explore here today! Of course God did introduce a system of laws concerning the poor not extant today, however parts have been
incorporated into our laws at various times and been a model that others have wanted to aspire too
For instant, crops were not to be completely harvested but a portion left for the poor [about 10%] In our laws about 10% of our taxes are set aside for the poor
And globally 10s of billions are sent to poorer nations
Here, to have such a provision socially prevents violent civil strife.
For the early church, collections for the Church occurred.
I once had a pastor who genuinely believed that “the kingdom of God” was in point of fact the Marxist manifesto.
We are a great stable country to which many Asylum seekers aspire to live in, even though at times both Church and State seem to be in fact an Asylum.
I think that Paul’s rejoinder should be incorporated into our laws
2 Th 3:10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
I once had a pastor who genuinely believed that “the kingdom of God” was in point of fact the Marxist manifesto.
Did you not suggest that in that case he should go preach the gospel in the USSR, in order to get closer to Heaven?
Thanks Geoff July 13, 2023 at 5:54 pm
I have dropped into that site often, Always happy to have Flavels
thoughts on a subject.