Article
- Date:
- Sunday 29th October 2023
Year A, The Last Sunday after Trinity - Place:
- Holy Trinity, Hurstpierpoint
- Service:
- Parish Eucharist
- Readings:
- [passage=Leviticus 19.1-2,15-18/]
Matthew 22.34-46
We are so used to saying that we must do as we would be done by that it is in danger of becoming a platitude instead of being foundational. The phrase occurs in Leviticus as a legal precept, that in the exercise of procedural justice, all are to be treated equally, regardless of riches or power. When Jesus uses the phrase in answer to a legalistic question it is not so clear that he is confining himself purely to the application of procedural justice; and he says many other things in the gospels which lead one to think he demanded this rule to be applied in matters of social and economic justice. But this idea goes back to another passage in Leviticus where farmers are required to leave a generous quantity of grain, grapes and olives for poor gleaners. Economic fairness is not a modern socialist imposition, it is a Biblical requirement.
In discussing this matter in western society, we have tended to get ourselves into a muddle by confusing and conflating equality and uniformity. So when we say we should treat people equally it does not mean that we should treat them identically, all in the same way; equality is a matter of according all people equal concern and respect and the opportunity to maximise their life chances. People who rank freedom and choice above all other factors are apt to challenge equality by confusing it with uniformity by saying that if we all start from the same place we will each end up in a different one. But to accord people what is due to them individually actually means giving most to the least advantaged and demanding most of the most advantaged. Which is not, I think, what the lovers of freedom and choice actually want.
But for the Christian, procedural and legal provisions are not enough, particularly now. There is a fairly simple algorithm which says that in a well-developed society, the lower the taxes the greater the need for charity, which is why we have our food bank. The trouble is, just as the rich pay the lowest percentage of their income, if any, in tax, they also give the least by percentage in charitable donations. Perhaps that's why they're rich.
A proper starting point is to understand our obligation, at least to understand simple economics, because that is the only way we can make a judgment about our obligation.
We may disagree about what justice and love require of us, but let me set out three simple rules:
- First, look at poor people on television and in the street and put yourself into their shoes, or no shoes
- Secondly, go further than asking what you would want in their place but ask what they would want
- Thirdly, be deeply suspicious of an obligation which is easy to fulfil.
The point here is that as Christians we are called upon to exercise sacrificial love, not to confine ourselves to treating others as we would want to be treated but as they individually want to be treated.
And in our lifetime there has never been a more vital need for this approach as there is now. In the foreseeable future, the call on public expenditure will rise while our incomes will fall. We have driven our road miles and flown our air miles; we have drunk our prosecco and Malbec; we have eaten our avocados and mangos, our squid and our scallop. We have run up massive public debts to fund our standard of living while resisting higher taxes. We have left a shocking heritage for those we say we love. They will be worse off than us, the first generation poorer than their parents since 1850. We have forgotten that justice should not just be secured within a generation but between generations.
But while we cannot undo all that we have done, we must put right what we can. So let me finish with three summary points:
- First, it bears repeating for a final time that love is uncontractual and unconditional. The question to Jesus about the law was a trap set to entangle him in Scripture and tradition. We must not be entrapped by thinking that the poor are undeserving and will waste our gifts; thinking that people who arrive in small boats are at best inconvenient and at worst fraudulent; and thinking that we should only give to causes which accord with our preference.
- Secondly, to parody Dennis Healey, if our love isn't sacrificial it isn't intense and extensive enough.
- Thirdly, love is active. There is no point asking god to solve problems where God gave us the means to solve them. We should not pray for the starving if we do nothing about them. God will not fix that which it is ours to fix.
The exercise of sacrificial love is the crowning virtue of Christian life. As Saint Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 13, of faith, hope and love, the greatest is not faith, as some Protestant theologians would have it, the greatest virtue is love.