Wealthy and financially healthy lefties love pretending they are not rich

 Growing up in north London I lived among the chattering classes. Yes, those who have dinner parties and think that they know how the country should be run. They know best and they have a better grip on life than anyone else.  Some of them who live in N6, NW3, N2, N10  and N12 often like to think that they are not rich but comfortable.  They are at ease in Zion, happy with their lot in life and rarely admit that they are privileged and perfectly positioned to enjoy a lavish lifestyle.

The fact is that in this modern world of conflict, catastrophe and constraints, they are enjoying a very rich and high standard of living with tremendous benefits, blessings and bonuses.  The haughty of Hampstead and Highgate, the muesli munchers of Muswell Hill and financially secure of Finchley seem to take their privileges and places for granted.

They enjoy very good schools, good access to libraries, cinemas, theatres, cultural events, museums, the Northern Line, great transport links and the lovely lung of London... Hampstead Heath and Kenwood. And the Heath and Kenwood are free for all to enjoy. Fabulous.

North London offers so much, but who can afford to live there? Parking can be hellish but the transport system really helps. Though getting out of north London to Barnet and beyond on a Friday afternoon evening, particularly when the weather is fine, can be frustrating.

I read with interest an article in the Sunday Times about FAME AND FORTUNE.  It seems to me to exemplify this North London phenomenon that I encountered from birth in N2. Someone who says that the last thing they want in life "is to be rich".  But they are by world health and social standards very rich indeed. They are Oxford educated. They live in a four bedroom flat with a huge garden in Ealing. Their husband worked for the Financial Services Authority now the FCA.  This self confessed lefty has the safety net of "extremely rich relatives".  This journalist and TV pundit, with considerable influence, earns good money regularly, and has two children, probably high achievers, who could help with the cash flow problems.

Now add all these factors together and that sounds like someone who is wealthy and financially healthy,  someone who is rich, which of course is the last thing she wants in life.

PS 30/11/2023

I must admit that this journalist is one hundred per cent right and completely on the money in saying:

I know the misery that money causes in families: the fights, the favoured ones, the unfavoured ones. It's a miserable thing to be that rich.

Knives Out?

The Open Church and Management Methods

 It was good to see an end of Purpose Drive Church courses in UK Baptist churches.  In previous blog posts I have contended that the PDC courses and method were in no way compatible with Baptist church practice and membership.  These courses had a harmful and detrimental effect on Baptist church life by attempting to by-pass the established method of church membership through the process of the church meeting. Completing the course gave a way to direct membership.

Baptists have been accused of embracing the heresy of church democracy. It is maintained, by  opponents of church democracy, that the church should not be run by or allow key decisions to be subject to the members at the church meeting. The final decision should rest with the elders or leaders or senior management/leadership. The leadership should move the membership to make the best decisions (or the decisions that they want).

Management by senior leadership or team, often salaried staff members, seems to be a popular development in some churches.  While the church meeting and the members may appear to have a final say in the decision making process, in fact the management orders the agenda, the process and the policies at the church meeting.  Any other business (AOB) in some places can only be entered on the agenda, and therefore conducted, when the subject is checked and carefully vetted by the management.  Under this system the church member cannot raise any spontaneous and immediately pressing concerns.  Consequently certain subjects are kept off the agenda, and the control of what is discussed is firmly in the hands of the management team.  This inevitably stifles debate.  It leaves absolutely no room for open discussion of a controversial issue that the management do not want to pursue.  If the AOB is submitted to the management at a later time, a future meeting, then they can manipulate, massage and move issues to suit their ends.  The level of management control stops and stifles openness and pressing concerns.  

Allowing management in a church context to operate in this way often has other serious implications.

It would not allow for prophecy, for the exercise of certain spiritual gifts, for open prayer and charismatic worship. A church devoid of spontaneity and openness would be detrimental, in my opinion, to the spiritual health and welfare of the fellowship.

In my experience, tightly managed church bureaucracies lead to frustration and failure.  This is particularly the case when the young people and young adults in the church are not invested in the church meeting.  Some pastors, teachers and preachers maintain such tight control that they fail to develop, to nurture and to encourage the next generation and those with leadership potential. 

It was sad to see talented young people and young adults leave these tightly controlled/ hierarchical fellowships for more open churches where their abilities were given the opportunities to thrive and develop. On the other hand, it was necessary in order for them to flourish, but it was a painful experience.

Are we equipped to tackle the neo-Arians?

 Few today seem to know about Athanasius and the Arian controversy. In some ways it is being played out when one encounters the Jehovah Witnesses.

Now I respect them for their stand in WW2, their high ethical values and their commitment to spread their message in the face of ridicule, rudeness and rank contempt.

Their message is not new for Arius once taught doctrines with which they would be comfortable:

Jesus was a created being.

There was a time when He was not, when He did not exist.

Jesus is not the divine Son of God or God the Son.

There is no Trinity.  

God is one and there is no other God(s).

There is no Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jesus did not teach that He is or was God.

All of the above statements or doctrine are false, wrong and heretical according to Christian tradition, what is called Orthodoxy, the right way established by the universal Church and true to the Biblical narrative.

Today we have various forms of this false teaching. It is said that Jesus was a good teacher, a great example, a wise and wonderful person, a person to respect, honour and esteem as a religious leader.

Now all of these comments have elements of truth and merit. But a clear and honest reading of the New Testament and a good understanding of the whole Bible shows that Jesus was the divine Son of God> He is the King of Kings and LORD of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega, and the Way, the Truth and Life. He is the Saviour who came to save sinners. God was in Christ. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Jehovah Witnesses (JWs) twist the New Testament Greek and have their own translation, the New World Translation.  Certain texts, for example, in John's Gospel are changed to suit their doctrines.

In the original text it clearly states that:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

And He, Jesus, the Word, the divine Logos, is God, not a god or a created being. Jesus is God and it is clear in John's Gospel that He was worshipped. John 9:38 is clear. And the JWs admit that only God should be worshipped.

When it comes to John 12: 41 the JWs are all at sea and have to play all sorts of theological gymnastics to explain the meaning of the text. Please read it. Mark, learn and inwardly digest the context and the deep implications of this verse with reference to Isaiah 6 and you should see what I am getting at.