Dutiful death and the Politics of Jesus (Monday 30 June 2014)

It would be well worth reading the following article, "The Pitchforks are coming for us Plutocrats" alongside the post below ...

Death and taxes are the great certainties of life. Last week listening to someone - have forgotten whom - on the radio talking about taxes I heard mention of 'death duties' as a tax worth exploring. For overseas readers we do not have death duties or tax payable on estates. But, to coin a phrase, 'I've been thinking' and I wonder if we should discuss death duties as part of the politics of Jesus.

In my view some very mischievous talk takes place about taxes. Recently I read a report of an otherwise sound and sensible NZ journalist asking a party leader committed to tax cuts why, if part of government, he would 'give' more money to the wealthy. Er, when we work for money, the income is ours, the government takes some it as taxes, the only 'giving' in the transaction is from the earner to the Inland Revenue. A tax cut is taking less from the earner not performing a charitable act!

In the end, from the politics of Jesus perspective, summing up teaching in passages such as Romans 13, taxes are contributions made by citizens for the apparatus of the state, including defence of the realm, and for an efficient means of enabling shared societal goals to be reached concerning the welfare of all.

Taxes have nothing to do with, say, depriving the wealthy of wealth, or redistributing income in order to equalise incomes or to at least compress the differences between highest and lowest earners. The latter goals may be laudable according to socialist theory, desirable in terms of developing a harmonious society, and - most importantly - they may be agreeable in terms of a proposal to an electorate which is accepted through voting at an election, but they have nothing to do with the politics of Jesus. Those politics require the care of the weak and vulnerable but doing that via voluntary charity is as much an expression of Jesus' teaching as doing it via a tax funded welfare system.

My view on taxes as a means of creating an agreeable society is that I happily pay taxes in order to fund a welfare state as I prefer the dignity of people in need receiving benefits rather than sitting or lying outside every shop begging (literally) for their livelihood. Funding education (assisting people to be ready to take their place in the workforce) and health (ditto re avoiding begging for money to pay doctor's bills) is a logical extension of social contracting to be a welfare state rather than a non-welfare state. Elections, in such a society, in one perspective, are about the amount of tax required for that agreeable society.

Thinking in this way, responsible governments have a duty of care to the medium and long term future of the welfare state to ensure the economy is humming away: workers earn incomes from which taxes are taken. To take too much tax can be to drive down the number of workers (in NZ's case, people tend to avoid high taxes here by heading for overseas jobs) and/or to force away from NZ the entrepreneurial business people who start and develop new industries and businesses. If we really care for the poor we will want a rockstar economy! (Apparently we have one at the moment ... that is a better state to be in than a poorly performing one).

If all such talk means that we take care not to over tax incomes, nor to drive businesses away through unreasonable burdens of taxation, then the question arises, as it is around the world, are there nevertheless ways in which we can prevent the rate of growth of inequality as some wealthy people/families acquire more and more capital leaving less and less for the 99% (or even the 99.9%) to share in?

Death duties potentially are a means of constraining that growth. They have the advantage of not constraining business people through taxation while they are using their skills and acumen to grow and develop their wealth. Breaking up large estates is something NZ has form on: a long time ago large farms were forcibly broken into smaller parcels of land in order to allow more people to farm.

Of course in the politics of Jesus nothing is directly said about death duties. But quite a bit is said about the inability of wealth to be utilised after death! Our treasure should be built up in the Bank of Heavenly Credit, not stored in barns below.

Anglican Unity

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS BELOW IN BOLD

I cannot resist posting this photo depicting united Anglicans (H/T Titus One Nine)

I think we could run a wee quiz:

1. Who are these bishops? (Obviously you can cheat on this one by heading to the source). But some readers here will recognise all three. Archbishop Peter Jensen (retired, Sydney), Bishop Mark Lawrence (Diocese of South Carolina), Archbishop Ben Kwashi (one of the archbishops of the Anglican Church of Nigeria).

2. Which one is due to speak in Christchurch later this year? ++Peter Jensen, at a couple of events arranged by the Latimer Fellowship.

3. All three belong to member churches of the Anglican Communion. Discuss. Discussion should include reference to the Diocese of Sydney being part of the Anglican Church of Australia and, along with the Anglican Church of Nigeria a member church of the Anglican Communion, while the Diocese of South Carolina has remained outside of the Anglican Church of North America and other Anglican churches, including The Episcopal Church itself, nevertheless coming under the oversight of the Primates' Council of the Global South (a network of member churches of the Anglican Communion). You may like to write your essay with either an aspirin or a glass of whiskey handy.

4. Which two of the three belong to Anglican churches which are not in a formal relationship with ACNA? See above: Mark Lawrence and ++Peter Jensen. Nigeria, by contrast, is 'related' to ACNA via the involvement of CANA (i.e. North American branch of Nigeria's Anglican church) within it.

5. What recent event might have contributed to these three bishops being in the USA at the same time? ACNA had a recent meeting at which it elected a new archbishop. Perhaps that event drew ++Peter and ++Ben to the States? The photo was taken, however, in a different place, in the Charleston Airport, South Carolina, where +Mark resides.

Well done to Andrew and Bryden re answers.

I will post my answers here tomorrow morning. I will publish comments till then without responsive comment from me.

Inspiring courage

As we celebrate and commemorate the lives, teaching and examples of Peter and Paul, let's continue to pray for Meriam Ibrahim. She is an inspiring example of Christian courage in the tradition of Peter and Paul. Gabriel Said Reynolds tells us the story at First Things.

A Clear and Present Word

Bishop Tim Harris is in fine form as he continues to reflect exegetically on the matter of women, Scripture and roles. In a post specifically titled to connect with the Diocese of Sydney he tackles 1 Timothy 2:11-15:

"6. The most significant interpretive crux in understanding 1 Tim. 2:11-15 is located in the rationale contained in verse 14: ‘and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.’ This key verse is too often overlooked, and unless it refers to a female gullibility, it is most cogently understood with reference to women being targeted by the false teachers in Ephesus.

In brief, if the ‘creational order’ emperor is not entirely naked in 1 Tim. 2:11-15, he is certainly light on in the clothing department, especially if it reduces male-female relationships to gender hierarchy and male authority.

Beyond the catch-phrases

One of the frustrations is in the adopting of ‘catch-phrases’ that do little to clarify the distinctive features of various positions. I am very happy that women are ‘equal but different’. Egalitarians are just as ready to affirm that males and females complement one another in the created scheme of things. Where we differ is in perceptions of a gender related hierarchy of authority, and in role-delineated asymmetry of relationships."

I am with +Tim. There is a symmetry in the treatment of women in the Bible which is under appreciated by 'complementarian' approaches.

Why I think the early church was proto-Anglican

I am in the midst of an unusual period of 'apostolic' activity. No, I am not planting churches (the essence, in my view, of apostolicity) but I am engaging with the apostles and their associates.

Today I lead a seminar in Rangiora on the theology of Paul. By Wednesday I need to have completed a paper on Luke for a one day conference on Luke at Carey Baptist College - I may say more about Luke after that - the gist of my paper is that he has no reliability as an independent historian! Meantime work has begun on the next Lenten Studies book to be published by Theology House in time for 2015, based on John's Gospel. In early July I begin teaching a paper on the Book of Revelation (written by John the apostle? Another John?) for the University of Otago.

Such engagement is very fulfilling but it raises many questions. One question is the extent to which the New Testament is a collection of diverse theologies which have a degree of unity drawing them together but which, when all is said and done, do not quite fit with each other. (Prompted by a remark or two I have read in the past week) do John and Paul, for example, share the same approach to communicating the gospel to the Hellenistic world? Does John connect the gospel comfortably with that world while Paul offers a radical critique of it?

Of course such diversity in the early church brings the thought to mind that it was a prototype of the Anglican church we experience today: diversity with strained unity.

I must be off to Rangiora ...!

Spanky Moore to grace Ilam Fields

The Christchurch Diocesan Mission Team is in a happy(ish) state of transformation as changes take place. One of the team leaves soon for St John's College. Another has just had a baby. Today it has become public that Spanky Moore, sometimes known as Joshua Moore, Young Adults Co-ordinator for the Diocese of Christchurch will become Senior Chaplain to the University of Canterbury (aka Ilam Fields). (A half-time appointment so the Young Adults work will continue).

It is a 'happy(ish)' state of transformation as our happiness is for the individuals concerned and the 'ish' part is the challenge of taking the work done to date forward.

Back to Spanky's appointment ...

A promo article, sourced I believe from within the university itself, is worth reading on Taonga. I am sure an article written from within the church would have omitted the raw meat throwing and told us about the brilliance of the Salt and Light movement - a flourishing series of young adult events through the past few years.

Anyway, best person for the job and all that. Spanky is one of the best communicators I have ever come across in my life and I look forward to seeing him make gospel waves at my alma mater.

I originally posted this prematurely two days ago and then withdrew it. The post is slightly rewritten from then.

I think I agree. Why replace 'after Pentecost' with 'Ordinary'?

George Wiegel hits a nail (or two) on the head. Here is the money paragraph from this railing against the ordinary:

"There are many reasons to deplore the change in liturgical nomenclature for the weeks after the Easter Season, from Sundays “after Pentecost” to Sundays “in Ordinary Time.” As has been noted previously in this space (perhaps to be point of reader-tedium!), there is nothing “ordinary” about time after the Resurrection and Ascension. For, as that Colossians text suggests and Augustine makes explicit, human “time” has now been drawn into the divine life through the mystery of Christ’s return to the Father and his being seated “at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:3) as Lord of history. History, in that sense, is “inside” the Godhead."