"The Word became flesh and pitched his tent among us" (John 1:14)
For the #Occupy Christmas sermon you will need:
- the above Bible text
- a tent
- a suitable banner ('what would Jesus do?' etc.)
and a sermon incorporating some or all of the following ideas:
- the Incarnation as a protest camp
- the Incarnation as a public conversation about change and justice
- attempts to evict Jesus by the ruling powers as he was getting in the way of normal commerce and politics
- Jesus' plan to Occupy everything and everyone
- the question of how many of us have pitched our tent next to Jesus, but then gone back home because it's more comfy there.
I have the first two items on this list, still working on the rest. Any thoughts welcome!
Showing posts with label occupy lsx. Show all posts
Showing posts with label occupy lsx. Show all posts
Friday, November 18, 2011
Sunday, November 06, 2011
Sentamu: Take Pride in your Tax Bill
Provocative article in the Yorkshire Post by John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, yesterday. It opens:
With renewed public outrage at the excesses of the financial sector and the huge inequalities in wealth it has helped to generate, we are being confronted daily with new evidence of extremes of wealth and poverty, demonstrating how scandalously unfair our society is. But how is this to be addressed? This is the urgent task for us all.
The news that Chief Executives (CEOs) of the FTSE 100 companies last year received average pay increases of almost 50 percent adds urgency to our cause. Typically these CEOs receive 300 times as much as the least well paid British employees in their companies. If they have a responsibility to their staff, it is hard to imagine a more powerful way of telling some people that they are of little value than to pay them one-third of one percent of your own salary. (emphasis mine)
Sentamu argues that a change in attitudes towards wealth and inequality will drive a change in practice, and suggests a couple of reforms that might help to trigger the change in attitudes. One is to withhold royal honours from those who've awarded themselves large salaries, or whose companies have a big wage gap between the best and worst paid. The other is making public the amount of tax we pay, (voluntarily) to encourage people to take pride in the contribution they make, through tax, to the country.
Behind both of these is a desire to change values, to see pay not simply as an issue of economics, but of the fundamental value we place on one another, and on what we do for one another with our money.
Why?
Because changes in public attitudes can take place quite quickly. Over the last few decades racism has lost its respectability and is seen as unacceptable. The same applies to homophobia (the irrational fear of homosexuals) and discrimination against women. My belief and trust is that a society which has shown itself capable of making such rapid changes to attitudes in these areas will also prove capable of recognising that our society will work best when we recognise that as human beings we are all, fundamentally of equal worth and members of one society.
With renewed public outrage at the excesses of the financial sector and the huge inequalities in wealth it has helped to generate, we are being confronted daily with new evidence of extremes of wealth and poverty, demonstrating how scandalously unfair our society is. But how is this to be addressed? This is the urgent task for us all.
The news that Chief Executives (CEOs) of the FTSE 100 companies last year received average pay increases of almost 50 percent adds urgency to our cause. Typically these CEOs receive 300 times as much as the least well paid British employees in their companies. If they have a responsibility to their staff, it is hard to imagine a more powerful way of telling some people that they are of little value than to pay them one-third of one percent of your own salary. (emphasis mine)
Sentamu argues that a change in attitudes towards wealth and inequality will drive a change in practice, and suggests a couple of reforms that might help to trigger the change in attitudes. One is to withhold royal honours from those who've awarded themselves large salaries, or whose companies have a big wage gap between the best and worst paid. The other is making public the amount of tax we pay, (voluntarily) to encourage people to take pride in the contribution they make, through tax, to the country.
Behind both of these is a desire to change values, to see pay not simply as an issue of economics, but of the fundamental value we place on one another, and on what we do for one another with our money.
Why?
Because changes in public attitudes can take place quite quickly. Over the last few decades racism has lost its respectability and is seen as unacceptable. The same applies to homophobia (the irrational fear of homosexuals) and discrimination against women. My belief and trust is that a society which has shown itself capable of making such rapid changes to attitudes in these areas will also prove capable of recognising that our society will work best when we recognise that as human beings we are all, fundamentally of equal worth and members of one society.
Friday, November 04, 2011
Friday St. Pauls Singalong
Ht The St. James Church Daily/Jonathan Bartley Think it must be U2 on the soundtrack. Best version of this I ever heard was by local Somerset band 'Why?' on their live album 'Jig at a Why? Gig'. If anyone knows what Ant Parker and the lads are doing now, I'd love to know.
For Friday afternoon, there appears to be a Fantasy St. Pauls Cathedral thingy going on on Facebook. When I last looked, someone was campaigning for me to be made Dean of St. Pauls, but I'm hoping there's been a coup and someone else is in line, otherwise I shall have to resign in anticipation of possible violence.
Wednesday, November 02, 2011
The Unfamiliar Sound of the CofE Getting its Act Together
Update: good interview with Rowan Williams by the BBC.
The Diocese of London finally got on the front foot yesterday with this statement/action about the St. Pauls situation. Amongst other things, it notes the re-engagement of Giles Fraser in the process, and the appointment of Ken Costa to investigate reconnecting finance and ethics. Alongside came the Archbishop of Canterburys statement, which appears to endorse the 'Robin Hood tax' and speaks of the 'idolatry of high finance'.
Fraser first: good news, this enables the CofE to get one of its more media-savvy clerics back on the front line, to share duties with Pete Broadbent, Sally Hitchiner and others. It also, more importantly, may allow for the publication of the St. Pauls report into City of London ethics, which was due to be published last week until Frasers resignation. Since it was put together by an institute which he ran, it wouldn't have made sense to make it public at the time, but perhaps now it can be.
Ken Costa: most well known for his connections with Holy Trinity Brompton and the Alpha Course, Costa is also behind the excellent God at Work course/book, which seeks to help Christians reconnect faith and work in a number of practical ways. He's been quite busy of late, and his recent speech in the City of London about capitalism and morality is well worth reading, for a flavour of the kind of critique we might see more of from CofE sources:
Morality is both taught and caught. But that means it can also be forgotten and lost. Whatever the reality is, the perception is certainly that the financial world has forgotten or lost moral moorings, and there is deep public anger at this.
My feeling is that governments will not long be able to ignore or resist this anger, and will be compelled to respond to some of the more ambitious calls for intervention and regulation. And, well-intentioned as these may be, it is unlikely to be successful.
If you want a briefer version of his argument, try this piece in last weeks Financial Times. Costa is no anti-capitalist. He believes that a fundamentally capitalist economy can be redeemed, but only by recovering a sound ethical basis. I'm not sure I'm with him on that, but one step in the right direction is better than none. And, more importantly, he can make this argument in a way which makes sense to the financial and business sector, rather than in a way they can simply dismiss as a bunch of anarchists in tents.
The 'Restoring Trust in the City' initiative, which Costa was addressing, is looking at 'ethical behaviour' in the City, but to be honest it looks pretty weak. Any moral critique of mammon which doesn't mention the word 'justice', and have a pretty robust understanding of it, isn't going to float very far. We don't need codes of practice, we need justice and love in place of greed and individualism. That's where the Robin Hood tax perhaps comes in, depending on how the proceeds can be used.
By putting both Costa and Fraser into the mix, the Diocese of London looks like it's trying to have a foot in both camps (literally). Costa is a son of the City, Fraser is probably more at home on St Pauls steps than in its vestry. That could be a classic Anglican recipe for compromise, or it might actually be incredibly fruitful. Watch this space.
The Diocese of London finally got on the front foot yesterday with this statement/action about the St. Pauls situation. Amongst other things, it notes the re-engagement of Giles Fraser in the process, and the appointment of Ken Costa to investigate reconnecting finance and ethics. Alongside came the Archbishop of Canterburys statement, which appears to endorse the 'Robin Hood tax' and speaks of the 'idolatry of high finance'.
Fraser first: good news, this enables the CofE to get one of its more media-savvy clerics back on the front line, to share duties with Pete Broadbent, Sally Hitchiner and others. It also, more importantly, may allow for the publication of the St. Pauls report into City of London ethics, which was due to be published last week until Frasers resignation. Since it was put together by an institute which he ran, it wouldn't have made sense to make it public at the time, but perhaps now it can be.
Ken Costa: most well known for his connections with Holy Trinity Brompton and the Alpha Course, Costa is also behind the excellent God at Work course/book, which seeks to help Christians reconnect faith and work in a number of practical ways. He's been quite busy of late, and his recent speech in the City of London about capitalism and morality is well worth reading, for a flavour of the kind of critique we might see more of from CofE sources:
Morality is both taught and caught. But that means it can also be forgotten and lost. Whatever the reality is, the perception is certainly that the financial world has forgotten or lost moral moorings, and there is deep public anger at this.
My feeling is that governments will not long be able to ignore or resist this anger, and will be compelled to respond to some of the more ambitious calls for intervention and regulation. And, well-intentioned as these may be, it is unlikely to be successful.
If you want a briefer version of his argument, try this piece in last weeks Financial Times. Costa is no anti-capitalist. He believes that a fundamentally capitalist economy can be redeemed, but only by recovering a sound ethical basis. I'm not sure I'm with him on that, but one step in the right direction is better than none. And, more importantly, he can make this argument in a way which makes sense to the financial and business sector, rather than in a way they can simply dismiss as a bunch of anarchists in tents.
The 'Restoring Trust in the City' initiative, which Costa was addressing, is looking at 'ethical behaviour' in the City, but to be honest it looks pretty weak. Any moral critique of mammon which doesn't mention the word 'justice', and have a pretty robust understanding of it, isn't going to float very far. We don't need codes of practice, we need justice and love in place of greed and individualism. That's where the Robin Hood tax perhaps comes in, depending on how the proceeds can be used.
By putting both Costa and Fraser into the mix, the Diocese of London looks like it's trying to have a foot in both camps (literally). Costa is a son of the City, Fraser is probably more at home on St Pauls steps than in its vestry. That could be a classic Anglican recipe for compromise, or it might actually be incredibly fruitful. Watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)