on the Saturday after Good Friday and before Easter morning
Meditation on Isaiah 53
A servant does the master’s bidding,
Anticipates the request before the word is spoken,
Steps out of the background
Performs the bidden task
And steps back into the shadows.
The servant weaves his way seamlessly
Between task and labourers;
The oil that greases the wheel,
The brush that smooths the path,
He is known only when he is not there.
But he is always there,
Unremarked and unremarkable.
The servant, by definition, simply serves.
We did not notice him;
If we did, it was with disdain
(the northern yokel with the working-class accent).
We did not look at him;
Except to note he got what he deserved, no doubt.
We would not vote for him on Britain’s Got Talent.
Who would believe what would be
If he had not done the Father’s will?
We would not be healed.
(more)
[Based on a homily from Matthew 18:21-35]
‘How often should I forgive?’ Peter asks. ‘Is seven times enough?’ Jesus answers, not just seven times, but seventy seven times.
Lest we take this literally as a limit (can one keep track of that many acts of forgiveness?), Jesus tells a story that turns the question on its head—consider the consequences of not forgiving!
The story is pointed and its purpose unmistakeable. A king discovers that one of his stewards owes him nearly £2 million, and demands repayment on the spot. (The narrative offers no background on whether this had been a loan or was embezzled. Echoes of recent banking scandals come to mind.) The slave cannot pay, and so the normal ancient course of justice is invoked: he and his family are to be sold to pay off the debt. The man grovels at his master’s feet begging for time to repay. The king takes pity, and forgives the debt.
This forgiven, debt-free man walks out the door only to meet a fellow slave who owes him money—all of £600. The narrative follows that which had just been described: the fellow slave grovels, begging for time to repay. However, the debt-free slave has his fellow thrown into prison until the debt is paid.
The injustice does not need comment.
Thankfully, for the poor slave, other report this to the king. His response is immediate. He revokes his previous clemency, and hands the wicked slave over to the torturers (who, somehow will ring the debt out of him).
Justice, if rather rough.
Jesus’ application? ‘So my heavenly Father will do to you if you do not forgive from the heart.’
In view of what we have been forgiven (beyond repayment), how can we even consider putting a limit to forgiveness of those who wrong us?
Forgiveness is a central Matthean concern:
- In Matt 5 Jesus equates being angry or holding a grudge to murder (surely he exaggerates?). He makes it clear that one cannot worship God and allow there to be bad blood with others. In the context of worship (v 23), and prayer, as one realises that a brother/sister has something against you, it is your responsibility to go and seek reconciliation! Only when this is complete can worship continue. (So, today, an important part of Christian worship is the ‘passing of the peace’, a time given to affirming to one another that we are at peace with each other, before taking communion together.)
- In Matt 6:12, the heart of the Lord’s Prayer—prayed daily by many Christians, and weekly by most—is ‘forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us’. Forgiveness from God depends on forgiveness of others.
- The prayer is followed immediately (6:14-15) by, ‘If you forgive...you will be forgiven; if you do not forgive..neither will you be forgiven’. This is a foreshadowing Ch 18.
- So, when we come to Matt 18:21, we come to the hard work of living as the people of God. This is about how Christians get along with each other. The verses just before our reading describe how to seek reconciliation when a fellow believer wrongs you. Such matters are not private, but involve the whole community of faith. Anyone who has ever been part of a church knows just how painful fellow Christians are and can be. In effect, Jesus warns us not to be surprised; but he reminds us of what we have been forgiven as the basis for our own ongoing forgiveness of others.
The lectionary reading on forgiveness comes on the 11th of September, and the 10th anniversary of ‘9/11’. It is enough to grapple in a homily with the task of forgiveness within the family of God at the best of times. But the ubiquitous reminders of the violence of that day, and the torrent of war and suffering unleashed by it, casts this text in stark and harsh light. How can the community of faith in Jesus Christ speak in one breath of 9/11 and forgiveness?
With these thoughts in mind, I read this quotation from C S Lewis on a Friend’s Facebook status:
"To be a Christian is to forgive the inexcusable, for God has forgiven the inexcusable in you."
I don’t know what my Friend had in mind when he posted it, but its application to my line of thinking was profound. I posted to him asking what he thought about it in view of 9/11. This provoked some others to join the conversation. One responder challenged, fairly, the notion that Christians should just forgive (and forget), with no concern for justice. This is the post:
Are the terrorists to be forgiven piecemeal, or should justice be brought into the equation and applied to them as the consequence of their base and cowardly actions? God is a loving and merciful God, but he is also a God of righteousness and justice. Often seems to me to be the case that Christians are called upon by their ministers, pastors and leaders to forgive the likes of criminals, e.g. murderers, rapists, paedophiles, terrorists etc unconditionally, in which case this should preclude them from instituting criminal prosecutions against such perpetrators of evil. Why is there never any reference made to the justice aspect, without which the world would be in utter chaos as the 'forgiven' are left to continue unhindered in their pursuance of evil. I once heard a leading evangelical speaker addressing a group of parents of girls that had been brutally raped and infected with HIV Aids who later died. He urged these parents to forgive the rapists unconditionally and never at any stage made reference to their right and in fact their duty to have these offenders prosecuted in order to prevent them from raping other innocent victims again and sentencing them to a lingering death. Just wondering.
Is the demand to forgive to be taken to absolve the forgiven? Does forgiveness short-circuit justice? This is a difficult question.
As with so many others, I have been recalling my own reactions to the events of 9/11. I was surprised, in the first place, by how deeply personal I felt the attack—I did not expect that, and tried to grasp why it would be so. I found myself speechless, and only began to articulate my thinking in preparation for a sermon preached on 1 October. The Old Testament reading was from Jeremiah, and carried on the theme of ‘the day of the Lord’ from previous weeks. My friend and colleague Gordon Thomas had already suggested that 9/11 was a ‘Day of the Lord’, in the sense of an opportune moment to consider whether it might be a day of judgement, or an opportunity for redemption, not just for Americans and believers, but for Muslims. Here is part of what I came to say: What this perspective
...offers is that we see this Day of the Lord as a kairos, a moment of opportunity. Rather than being a time of war against evil, this may well be a time when Muslims who have remained silent while militants commit acts of violence in their name will look at what their faith stands for, and what it actually delivers—and may think.
But, when they think, what alternatives might they consider? Might it not be the way of love? What if the West, perceived by Muslims to be Christian, reacted contrary to expectation, and rather than declaring war, responded in Christian love? I wonder what that would mean for us. I wonder what would happen.
The question is, ‘what if...?’ But if, as friends have written to me, the US now has a professing Christian in the White House, it seems that the question is reasonable. How should a Christian president act? What part does the Love Command (‘You will love the Lord with all your heart...and your neighbour as yourself’) have in such leadership?
Does the Love Command apply only in individual situations (where it is difficult enough)? Does ‘turn the other cheek’ apply only in the one-on-one context? Is there one Christian ethic for personal piety, and another for nations who have been attacked by people who hate them? I know that asking such questions risks sounding pompous. But, they need to be asked. ‘War’ has been the first, and primary, response. Is no other response conceivable?
Think of the opportunity for a Christian leader!
Think, though, of the opportunity for us. [The] population [of our community] is at least 45% Muslim. Is this not a moment for us to act in Christian love towards our neighbours?
The world will never be the same after September 11. Is this a matter of fear? Or, a matter of opportunity for the love of Jesus Christ to reach to people who have never known such grace?
I found no takers for a discussion of what ‘love of the other’ would look like. Today’s text, demanding that we think about forgiveness, helps to fill this out.
Whereas Peter’s question in Matthew seems to be an internal dialogue—how can the church live out its forgiveness?—Luke’s Jesus takes the principle to the cross. In his last moments he breaths, ‘Father forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing’ (Lk 23:34), and extends forgiveness to those who killed him.
Thus, ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself’ (2 Cor 5:18). Jesus forgave, and humanity went on crucifying him; God was in Christ, and the world sill does not know it is reconciled. We forgive, because we are agents of reconciliation (again, 2 Cor 5:18). To love the world is to plead for its reconciliation.
Some years ago I found myself in a new job in a new location, the result of circumstances in which I felt I was treated unjustly. For months I struggled not just with the consequences of this for me and for my family, but with how I would live my faith, which called for forgiveness. In a time of prayer with my (Greek) New Testament open to Matthew 6, I read the Lord’s Prayer again. And I saw, as with new eyes, the word ‘forgive’. In Greek it bears the sense of ‘release’, letting go. And, whereas I had struggled with the common idea of ‘forgiving and forgetting’, and was not sure I could ‘forget’ yet, I realised that I could release my hold on my grievance, and on those whom I felt had wronged me. I could ‘let go’. And healing began.
It may be that forgiveness and 9/11, or to the ‘inexcusable’ (Lewis’ term), is not in pretending the wrong no longer matters, but in letting go of the grievance that consumes the aggrieved. The greater question surrounding 9/11 encompasses that of justice in an unjust world. The Christian question begins with the demand to forgive because of what we have been forgiven!
Justice must be found through forgiveness and reconciliation.
As Paul says in today’s reading from Romans 14, in verse 7, ‘We may not live to ourselves; we may not die to ourselves’. The subjunctive of the verb here (again a little Greek grammar) is seldom translated, and so missed. We have no choice. Our brother/sister/neighbour (‘Who is my neighbour?’ Jesus asks) has something against us. We exist for these others.
We cannot continue with our offering to the Lord until we go to our brother/sister/neighbour and are reconciled.
This is who runs Fox.
BBC, and, US via BBC
I plan to worship him in church on Sunday
Much hoo-haw is being made about the much-publicized announcement that Jesus will come for his saints on Saturday, 21 May, at 6 p.m. There is uncertainty whether that is US Central or Eastern time, or whether it is a rolling return of Jesus, at 6 p.m. on every time zone. If the latter, we may all follow it on 24-hour news coverage (like New Year fireworks displays)--and those in the later time-zones have a chance to repent and fly before Jesus gets to them.
One of these days someone will, by accident, get the day right, I suppose.
The Gazelle has posted on this phenomenon at length already. Follow the word cloud for 'rapture' to see previous entries. To respond directly to the author of this little flurry is to dignify silliness with undue attention.
For those who are not certain
There has been confusion in some parts as to the definitions of terms such as 'socialism' and 'Nazism'. Interestingly, President Obama has been called both in the same sentence. It appears history is not a strong subject amongst such people.
Watch this video clip for a vivid demonstration of fascism, of which Nazism was a sub-set.
The death of Bin Laden has been announced. It is, in great measure, a relief, even as the West tenses for the response.
President Obama says justice has been done. Certainly, vengeance has been wrought.
There is jubilation on the streets of America. But there is something disturbing about these scenes.The mind goes to the mirror-image, of Arab crowds on the streets following 9/11.
Poor ol’ American Rightwingers cannot even rejoice at this show of force, because Obama did it. All they can say is, ‘Of course he takes the credit for himself’.
Is this what ten years of war for freedom and democracy does to a people?
In The Independent newspaper a story from 2001 has suddenly become the most read article on its website.
Just one month after the attacks on America the Taliban offered to surrender Bin Laden. Read President Bush’s response, and think what might have been if the goal was, indeed, ‘justice’. How many lives, Afghani, Iraqi, and American, would have been spared had the Taliban offer been accepted by President Bush?
So the ‘war on terror’ goes on; the answer continues to be bombs and death.
A Facebook friend posted this today:
“Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.” Ezekiel 33.11 (I am conflicted).
A thoughtful perspective amidst conflicting feelings.
Justification for doing nothing
I had heard of certain Christians using Jesus’ words in John 12 as justification for ignoring the needs of the poor and marginalised of society, but had never seen it stated so boldly until recently. I was reading an article online in Christianity Today about Satan. It was quite a good article, offering a counter statement to typical evangelical fascination with the Evil One. The clue to this approach is in the title: ‘Satan's a Goner: A lesson from a headless snake’.
I went on to read some of the responses in the comments. (One has only to read a few to get the sense of the mindsets of the readers.) It was here that the oft-quoted saying of Jesus appeared. I offer you ‘Psalm and Proverbs’ own words: March 28, 2011 2:57am
I generally avoid reading ChristianityToday as many of the articles preach social justice and not the Biblical Gospel. So, it was through an external link that I came across this article. I was surprised to find that I truly enjoyed the truthful article (and the great analogy) until I reached the usual dilution of the Gospel in favour of the social justice version, ‘And so we are called to fight poverty, oppression, greed, and malice—in the world’. In all honesty I have found no such mandate in the Bible (i.e. fight poverty, oppression, greed and malice in the world) for that is the nature of the world. We are called to live righteously in the midst of such a wicked world avoiding its excesses. There is no Biblical mandate requiring believers to fight poverty and make people materially well-off, etc. Jesus said the poor will always be with us. We called to be merciful, just and to walk humbly with our God, avoiding sin and immorality. Let us not belittle our mandate. [Italics added]
There are many points to take up in this illustration of poor theological reasoning, but I will focus on just the one, because it is central to the contrast made between ‘social justice’ and ‘the Biblical Gospel’. Twice the writer states that ‘there is no [social justice] mandate in the Bible’. Jesus said the poor will always be with us, so such is the nature of the world—apparently, the God-created nature of the world.
This is an important point to take up at this time of year, because Jesus speaks these words in the week before his death. He was at the home of Lazarus (whom had raised from the dead), Martha, and Mary. Mary took a large container of expensive perfume and washed Jesus’ feet with it. It was an extravagant expression of love. Judas—the treasurer for the Twelve—criticised this waste of a valuable commodity, saying it should rather have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor.
It is the sort of question politicians often hear, when the announcement about spending on one project is criticised for not being spent on another. The argument may have value, but it is clear the motivation for the criticism is not genuine concern for the alternate project.
Jesus dismisses the criticism with the famous words, ‘Leave her alone. You always have the poor with you, but you do not always have me.’
The sort of interpretation given by Psalm and Proverbs is an odd one. It argues that, in saying this, Jesus is laying down an eternal principle—because the poor will always be with us, we don’t need to give to them. Rather, we can go on spending our riches on whatever we like.
Such an interpretation misses an important clue to understanding. The clue is missed out of ignorance of the Bible, becuase Jesus is quoting from the Bible. This saying comes from Deuteronomy 15:11. The first half of the verse says, ‘There will never cease to be poor on the earth.’ That is not the end, but goes on to command, ‘Therefore I command you, open your hand to the poor and needy neighbour in your land’.
So much for no Biblical mandate regarding the poor.
It is worth looking more closely at this part of Deuteronomy. This is about remission of debts. Every seven years every creditor was to write off every claim against a debtor. Imagine this! All bad debt is wiped out every seven years!
There is a principle given for this policy among God’s people, and it is found in Deuteronomy 15:4: ‘There will be no poor among you, because the Lord is sure to bless you in the land...’.
That is, in a land of plenty, there will be no poor because if any falls into need, the neighbours ‘open their hands, willingly lending enough to meet the need’—even if the end of the seven year period is very close (v 8). On the other hand, if the neighbours do not give, they ‘will incur guilt’. In fact, the promised blessing from the Lord is given because people give ‘liberally and ungrudgingly’ (v 10).
Let me try to summarise what these verses are saying: A policy—we could call it a mandate—is established for God’s people that there are to be no poor among them. The policy presumes open-handed generosity by those who have wealth. Indeed, generosity and liberality that is ungrudging towards the poor is said to be the basis of blessing for the community. To make this work, the law is made that all debt is to be cancelled every seven years.
Admittedly, all of this is marred by the conclusion of the section: ‘But there will never cease to be some poor on the earth.’
And it is this part of the section that Jesus quotes to Judas. It is a perfect example of irony (something wholly lost on literalists). By citing this Scripture, Jesus refers Judas to Deuteronomy. He thus reminds him that there are to be no poor at all. And that the continued presence of the poor is because of hard-hearted and tight-fisted people with wealth to give. Judas’ words are judged.
This is the ‘Biblical gospel’—to give liberally and ungrudgingly to the poor and needy. And, it sounds very much like social justice.
Spring in Yorkshire
[For those new to the Gazelle, the origins of The Occasional are found before the days of blogs and websites, in descriptive missives sent to family and friends. It attempts to describe the world through the editor's eyes.]
By April the need to blow the grit of Manchester out of the head becomes paramount. We decided this weekend was the time. Ninety miles and two hours later we were in the heart of North Yorkshire, trading streets of traffic and millions of people for fields of sheep and a dozen nosy geese.
This is not to say it was quiet; but a different quality of noise. The bleeting of sheep is a given, of course. With the rest of the English-speaking world, I interpret their basic speech as ‘Ba-a’. It might be ‘Ma-a’. But there is a multitude of variation on the syllable. Most startling to me was a comment from one ewe as I walked past; I distinctly heard her say, ‘Meh!’. She had no place to talk. The sound of sheep ripping grass nearby only preceded the odour of their B.O. by seconds.
Our cottage sat alongside the Grisedale Beck, which draws a variety of bird-life. In the lengthening shadows of the first evening we kept hearing a loud metallic bird-call immediately followed by what sounded like the snort of a horse. No horses were in sight (though we did hear the whinnying of ponies the next day). The bird sound was a double screach like sheet-metal scraping against a pipe. After 15-20 minutes of careful watching I was finally able to observe a large male pheasant as the source of both the screaching and the snorting—the latter being the beating of its wings. (I’m sure naturalists identified this immediately).
There were also the sounds of ducks, geese, and what I wanted to call curlews, but were some other waterfowl (forgot both my bird book and binoculars). Not to mention the laying hens across the road. During the day there were a few blackbirds; but one night hundreds of them were flying above and roosting on the tops of the trees in the fir wood just opposite us. They were ‘neighbours from hell’, but only that one night. Was it a conspiratorial conclave to take over the dale? If so, they came to no united decision—no action followed. (Rather like NATO.)
Our cottage was a converted 17th C barn, one of several such recent renovations in the dale. Many more remain in ruin, bearing witness to a once thriving rural community of small-holders who, by the mid-19th C could no longer make a living and simply abandoned their homes.
The last collection of houses, furthest up where the dale meets the moors, was a most vivid illustration of the history of the area. We came on the place named Scale on the maps. Three buildings, a few out houses, and a graveyard are what remain of a Quaker settlement. It appears the Friends were numerous in this part of Yorkshire. What was poignant about this settlement is the starting date of the cemetery—1678.
This is a full ten years before the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of William and Mary of Orange, invited by parliament to come over from Holland, bringing the Stuart dynasty to a close. ‘Glorious’ because no blood was shed. The 1688 Act of Tolerance which followed made dissenting, or non-conformist, practice of faith legal for the first time, drawing a line under the sectarian strife of that bloody century.
This means that these Quakers had sought out a place of refuge as far from view as possible to live out their faith, and bury their own, when it was illegal to do so. Bold, and devoted.
SFOT writes in response to a November article (link)
Thank you, SFOS, for responding to this article. So few do, out of the 100,000 visitors per year. The primary purpose of the Daily Gazelle has been to encourage discussion, but has not succeeded very well in doing so.
It would be helpful, however, if your comments addressed specifics of what you dislike about what I have written. The Editor would love to read reasoned responses from different points of view, particularly within a Christian perspective. You said:
I've heard you wax poetic about maintaining unity among Christians and how the 'us v. them' debate is tearing us all apart and has been for a long time, however it doesn't look like you're doing much of anything to help it at all, by the looks of this.
I confess that I have noticed myself being a bit strident of late, for which I apologise. The thing about conversations between people of differing views is the need for conversation. The Editor has tried to engage people in conversation here, and at times (if you read back far enough) this has worked well. But not with American politics. I have raised questions with friends via other media, such as Facebook and email, in the desire for genuine dialogue, but this has not worked well. My questions are never answered. The responses tend to be along the lines of ad hominem attack, confusion of categories of discussion, dismissal as 'liberal' which apparently needs no response, and silence. I have pushed the limits of the bonds of friendship and kinship, without reasoned responses to my questions. I have come near to the point of despair, and unfortunately have shown it in being less than kind in my use of adjectives. 'Delusional' is not a good term for conversation. Oddly, though, it seems to have finally provoked someone to write.
With conversation in mind, let me respond to your comments:
This is clearly a ridiculous and sweeping generalization of Americans-"
No, it is directed only to the religious right (and didn't seem to strike the previous commenter as so sweeping). And, to whom is this so clear?
...
coming from someone who hasn't lived there in how long?
Does living outside the US for 29 years disqualify me for some reason? Am I tainted by living in Europe? Is there some diminution of the right to free speech when one doesn't live in the US? Something along the lines of the Bush administration's view that the writ of habeas corpus applies only in the US, and not in Guantanamo Bay?
Do you even vote in the elections, anywhere, to make your voice heard in a way that actually affects the outcome of an election?
The previous question seems to disqualify me from the right to speak for not living in the US. This one casts aspersions on my character.
I am on record elsewhere on this matter. In the past I have not voted in the US elections because I felt I did not know enough from a distance to make a decision. I should think you would appreciate this. This is no longer true, however--the internet makes finding information much easier; and being free of the daily blitz of party commercials is a bonus.
I am not a citizen of the UK, so cannot vote here.
Does you mean by this, then, that if I do not vote, for such reasons, I have no right to have my voice heard at all? If I did not vote out of apathy or laziness, I might accept this as a justified challenge. It doesn't work in this case.
Not voting and not having any affect at all on the outcome of an election are two separate matters. And, the question of voting in an election is not pertinent to the subject at hand--which is about the sources of political influence on Christians.
To call conservative, christian (sic) Americans 'deluded' and to take cheap shots at Fox by calling them 'fiction' - really
.come one (sic)
..
What is cheap about what is said here? Can you answer my challenges regarding the network and its motives? Have you investigated Rupert Murdochs history of political involvement, and attempts to have major control of all media in any market? Can you answer my challenge regarding the religious rights acceptance of the Fox network as 'truth' while turning a blind eye to the unchristian morality it advertises on its 'news' front page?
Can a network which regularly calls the Obama administration both socialist (meaning communist) and Nazi be taken seriously? In what way, then, is this a 'cheap shot'? I am in dead earnest. If any Christian thinks Fox is a defender of Christian concerns, or is an unbiased source of information, I am afraid they are deluded. I will stand by that.
This comment reveals a significant difference in point of view that I suggest you consider carefully. If you spoke of 'American Christian', or 'conservative Christian', I would not mention it. But the fundamental problem I have with the American religious right is the relation between these two words: American, and Christian. Which one do you think should be the governing noun, and which the adjective which modifies the noun? You appear to be an American who is distinguished from other Americans by being a Christian. I have stated elsewhere that I believe it vital to consider myself a Christian who happens also to be identifiable as being American, among other adjectives. When there is a conflict between what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be an American, the Christian always wins.
One of the values of living outside of the US, and living in multi-cultural communities, is that one is constantly aware of being an American. And, there is space to learn what the difference is between being an American Christian and a Christian American.
Maybe take your own advice at the end there and test your own spirit as well- I think you like to point out where someone else is going wrong, but don't like to take a look at yourself very often. Come to think of it - I think that verse is used just a bit out of context
.
This comes back to ad hominem argumentation. It goes beyond my own stridency, I fear. A couple points in response: one, of course the verse is taken out of context. But not as far as you suggest. The context of 1 John is testing against false prophets and anti-christs. If the Fox network is to be considered a safe source of a worldview for Christians, then it must be tested, or it is antichrist.
Secondly, on what basis does the charge '[you] don't like to take a look at yourself very often' make any sense in this format? This is not an introspective blog, nor a confessional. Of course I like to point out where other people are wrong. That is one of the purposes of this site. The comment section is there for people to offer a reasoned rebuttal to my viewpoints, which may persuade me that I am poorly informed, or wrong. Sadly, this comment is not in this category. Please try again!
A Guide to the British Election
The Political Dance
The Editor has lived in Britain most of the past 29 years. Margaret Thatcher was already Prime Minister on my arrival, and I watched her subsequent election victories, as well as her fascinating denouement. I watched the grey Major years from other parts of the world, and returned to the UK just three months after the sweeping New Labour election victory that brought Tony Blair to power. As an American citizen I have not had a voice in any of these elections (taxation without representation all over again (don't talk to me about tea parties!).
Thus, I have been an outside observer to both American and British politics throughout these three decades.
The day my family arrived in Manchester in the Summer of 1981, riots broke out. The two events were not connected. At the time, the media treated them as race riots. They were not. The reasons were economic.
I was returning to a church in inner Manchester that I had first seen in the early 70s, as a student. Back then, approaching the church by bus, my wife and I saw the brick rubble of whole city blocks (in American terms) of demolished houses. The lasting impression it left was of the devastation of cities in the blitz of World War II. This was 'urban renewal' in brutalist 60s fashion. All the housing stock, built in the 19th C, was condemned and knocked down so new low rent housing could be built. It was a positive response to urban decay, but a social disaster. The people in those houses were moved to a variety of locations across the city. Later, when the new houses were built a different variety of people were put into them. In one great social experiment, communities were destroyed and replaced by people with no connection to each other. Only now, forty years later, are these neighbourhoods regaining a sense of community. All largely thanks to the Marxist-leaning Manchester city council. (Yes, real socialists.)
The 80s, however, was Margaret Thatcher's decade, and I observed first-hand the consequences of Thatcherism (so beloved by Ronald Reagan and Tony Blair). Local unemployment in our area was among the highest in the country, at about 25% - rising to 50% for under 35s. The industries that had made Manchester world-famous disappeared, leaving vast stretches of empty factories and derelict land. Manchester was a bleak and ugly place.
Thatcher's hatred of left-wing councils, which governed all the main cities, took the form of cutting the central government funding for public services. Schools and hospitals lacked funds to maintain their buildings; salaries of nurses and teachers fell behind comparable incomes in private business. Schools sold their sports fields to property developers to maintain running costs; extra-curricular activities disappeared. Hospitals tried to keep the roofs of 19th C workhouses from leaking onto patients' beds. Meanwhile, the financial centres of the City of London built taller buildings, and the young bankers dined on lobster and champagne with their bonuses.
I witnessed this social experiment by the woman who famously declared 'There is no such thing as society'. A whole generation of young people in my parish had no chance to find employment, have grown up unemployable, and now their children--having never seen their parents work--are beginning to pass their experience on to a third generation. These are the 'layabouts' politicians created and now blame for the cost to the public purse.
My return residence in Britain coincides with the New Labour regime. Tony Blair represented the ejection of the socialist left-wing of the party, and the move to the centre, or 'Third Way' as he called it. Not a bad thing. Part of the ethos, nevertheless, was grounded in the post-war European social democratic tradition. This little-known aspect of European politics for Americans is important to understand. It is not 'socialist' in the Marxist/Leninist sense, but is what Western Europe did to reduce the appeal of that sort of socialism. It took the Marxist critique of society and addressed those issues which gave rise to two world wars and a cold war. It recognised the responsibility of the wealthy to the workers who provide them their wealth. But, all within strong democracies and market freedoms. It worked.
New Labour addressed the social inequities of the previous twenty years by pouring investment into public services. Schools were repaired and new ones built; modern, state of the art, hospitals were built. Salaries of public servants were raised to decent levels. In the 1980s my daughters went to a school made of WWII surplus material, meant to be a temporary measure. In the 2000s a new school was finally built. In the 80s my sister-in-law broke a leg while visiting us, and ended up in a Florence Nightingale ward work-house dormitory converted into a ward with beds lining the walls, divided only by curtains. In the 00s all trace of that era has disappeared.
Taxes rose to pay for this, but with the will of the electorate desperate for this to happen.
Then came the great bust of 2008, and the bail-out of the banks. And Gordon Brown, who was the nation's treasurer throughout the period of growth, is given the blame by the Conservatives. And there is blame to be placed on him for the depth of the problem in the UK. But the Tories should not point the finger too readily, because the New Labour economic policy was to that of Margaret Thatcher, with increasing the role of private business in public services, and giving the market free reign. Thus, Conservative economic management has continued to govern the British economy. One can only imagine what a US Republican/UK Conservative coalition of international finance would have left us with!
Youth unemployment in our area is rising to 1980s levels again. Another lost generation looms.
The third party in Britain, the Liberal Democrats, have surprised everyone by becoming genuine contenders in this election. The Liberals were the leading party of government until the rise of the Labour party in the 1920s, and this successor party has never known any form of government at national level. The polls have them even-pegging with the Conservatives ahead of Labour. The nature of the electoral system means that they could have 1/3 of the electoral vote, but still have only a fraction of the number of seats in parliament of even a third-place Labour party. There is a great desire for change of government in the UK, but much less enthusiasm for seeing it return to the bankers' friends, the Tories. At the moment, the result is wide open.
On the record of government in my neighbourhood, there is no reason to trust that Cameron's new Tory party is any different from the old one. A Labour government that acted less Tory would be preferable to the present one. Perhaps a coalition government would offer an opportunity for politics to pull politics out of its rut.
Who would I vote for if I had a vote? In the UK one votes for one's local Member for Parliament, not for the Prime Minister. I know my MP, having brought issues to his attention on behalf of people in the church and community. He knows his community, always responds immediately to letters, and has brought positive results to our requests. He is a consummate politician in the positive sense, able to speak off the cuff for fifteen minutes on a subject without hesitation or repetition, and bring his peroration to close with a neat tie-in to his first sentence.
I would vote for him. He happens to be Labour.
|
Displaying entries 1-10 of 101 |
Next page »
