Where's the Rage?

Luther

In 1517 a German priest, Martin Luther, nailed to the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg a list of his complaints against the Roman Catholic Church of which he was a member. They became known as his Ninety Five Theses. They were Luther’s objections to many of the practices that had grown up in the Catholic Church over centuries – especially that of selling of indulgencies. This practice allowed the Church to raise money by selling absolution from sin. At that time the Pope was trying to raise money for the rebuilding of St Peter’s Church in Rome and over the centuries the belief had been promoted by the Church that faith alone was not enough to justify man’s actions and, hence, his sins. To be absolved from one's sins and ultimately gain entry to heaven men had to be active in charity and good works, they had to spend, as well as being simply devout believers. From this belief sprung the idea that the heavenly benefits of good work could be obtained by donating money to the Church – in other words, buy your salvation, your freedom from sin, your entry to heaven.

A contemporary wood cut
of  an indulgence seller

To this end the Church dispatched Indulgence Commissioners across Europe – their mission to be to sell indulgencies to people and thus promise them entry to heaven for their good works. In 1516 such a Commissioner, Johann Tetzel, arrived in Germany. One of Tetzel’s hard sell gambits to believers was "As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory rises and to heaven doth spring" – Tetzel and his fellow indulgence salesmen were the sixteenth century equivalent of the cold caller from the call centre promising that the earth (and indeed the afterlife!) can be yours if you just get out your credit card now!  Luther was incensed, it went against everything he believed in. He insisted that forgiveness was God's alone to grant and in Thesis 86 he asked “Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?" Of particular concern to Luther was that the practice hit at every level – the rich could do this and thus gain a sort of perceived moral and heavenly superiority over other men because of their “gifts” whilst the poor, who in those days were often close to starvation, were being “conned” into parting with money that they could not afford. But, most importantly for Luther, it went against all his profoundly held beliefs about the nature of worship, devotion, sanctity and the good man.

I wonder what the Barclay's banker would have to pay for salvation
after taking his "criminal" bonus and made 7000 people
redundant to pay for it?

From time immemorial there has been a close link between religion and politics – the Crusades, the problems in Northern Ireland in the latter half of the twentieth century and indeed the current war on terror bear witness to that fact. Luther’s actions in 1517, although against specific practices of his own Church echoed around Europe. Momentum gathered and what started as a single monk being angry about a purely religious matter quickly developed in to the Reformation and that, in its turn, completely altered the political make up of Europe and the wider world. No longer was the Pope and the doctrine of the Catholic Church the only game in town - kings, nations, parliaments and free men began to increasingly define action. It  brought the Protestant movement, the Church of England,  gave justification to Henry the VIII in his struggles against the Pope, spawned the later Puritan and Methodist Churches and underpinned the basic political beliefs about religious freedom, freedom of thought, wider democratic freedoms and that are today the basis of western nations. Last week, February 18th, was the anniversary of Luther’s death in 1546.

I reflected on this fact and the link between church and state several times during this past week.

Newly elected cardinal Vincent Nichols
- he upset the P.M. Must be a good guy!

In the UK of late there have been a number of comments, sermons  and articles from various representatives of the churches all on the same theme – criticism  of the UK government’s recent policy on welfare reform and the benefits paid to those in need. The Methodist Church commented "The [government] states that Universal Credit will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. However, the other changes that are part of welfare reform are likely to push these children straight back down again. Indeed, welfare reform is the driving force behind the predicted increases in both relative and absolute poverty in families with children over the next decade.....”  These comments were reinforced by the Bishop of Manchester who attacked government for creating a ‘national crisis’ and forcing thousands of British families into hunger and hardship. The bishop is among 27 of Britain’s leading Anglican clergy who criticised the government’s benefits changes for sending people “flocking to food banks”. The priests have been clear in telling the prime minister he has a ‘moral duty’ to act to stop people going hungry. And probably the most high profile comment has been from the newly appointed Roman Catholic cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster who said the Government had “decimated” even the most "basic safety net" for those threatened by poverty. The leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales also said that the welfare system had become more "punitive........” leaving people with nothing if they fail to fill in forms correctly”.

On Saturday Giles Fraser a priest and former chancellor of St Paul’s cathedral wrote in the Guardian ‘The "moral" case [put forward by the government] for benefit cuts is an attempt to re-establish a culture of personal responsibility. It is an attack on the feckless....... this is now being used to disparage a whole class of vulnerable people whose greatest crime in life is to find themselves struggling to get by in the chill winds of a financial climate that was absolutely not of their making.

Since Christmas, my church has turned itself into a homeless shelter once a week. Volunteers cook large batches of shepherd's pie for hungry people who have been wandering the streets most of the day. We provide a warm bed and a safe place to hang out for the evening. Camp beds are set up in the nave of the church. And bacon rolls and porridge are provided for breakfast. Unfortunately, business is thriving. There is a waiting list for beds. Homelessness has risen 60% in London over the past two years. And half a million people now rely on food banks.

It's not just churches that are volunteering in this way. And many who help out with us are not themselves religious. But given the local nature of the parish system, and given that churches have an outpost in every community in this country, the clergy are uniquely positioned to understand the effect that financial cuts are having on the ground. And what makes many of us so bloody angry is that the reality of what is happening is not being acknowledged by politicians in government. They don't feel the need to face this reality because the war against the scroungers is so popular. So long as the right wing press keeps stoking our sense of indignation at those who exploit the system, the government has little incentive to admit the much wider reality that austerity is turning pockets of Britain into wastelands of hopelessness. The scrounger tag has become a way to blame the poor for their poverty. How convenient. Those who created this financial crisis have got away scot free, protected by their money and their lobbying power. So now we blame the poor, a much easier target”.

Fraser is correct. Sadly, too, we are governed today by politicians (of whatever party) who generally do not care. They may weep crocodile tears, they may wring their hands in mock exasperation but in the end they do nothing. They are in thrall to big business and power based upon wealth.  Even more sadly, most of us, Joe Public, are the same – we have become too comfortable. Although we know there are very great problems in the world and in our own country we are too cosy. Yes, we can pull out our credit cards for some international disaster appeal or when the TV tells us that it is the time for the “Comic Relief Appeal”  or “Children in Need” and then, having sponsored someone or donated our £10 we sit back and feel virtuous. It must have been exactly the same feeling that medieval folk enjoyed when they had bought their indulgence from Johann Tetzel – we have paid our way to salvation but changed nothing.

The right wing press  are quick to seek
out the scroungers..........

..........but conveniently forget who gets the biggest
benefits handouts in this country

And it isn’t just about the poor or the UK government policy on benefits. Only a few weeks ago I mentioned in a previous blog that the picture is the same in the USA. I copied a picture of President Obama helping out at his local food bank close to the White House. It was, to me beyond comprehension that the richest nation in the world, indeed, that the world has ever known has to feed a large portion of its population with handouts  within yards of the seat of power of the most powerful government in the world. I read, too, that despite the UK government clamp down on benefit scroungers and the growth of food banks which so concerns church leaders our financial services sector is booming and bankers have found a myriad of ways around beating any limits on bonus payments – and the government sit back and say “we can do nothing”. Just one of the reports told us that “Britain's biggest bank, HSBC......is to award more than a thousand of its top staff allowances to avoid the EU bonus cap........ HSBC is to award its chief executive Stuart Gulliver a £1.7m "fixed pay allowance" on top of his £1.2m salary to prevent his pay from falling as a result of the restriction on pay imposed by Brussels........ he will receive a minimum pay deal of £4.2m a year, up from £2.5m now. For 2013, bonuses took his total pay £8m, up from £6.3m the previous year. A letter in today’s paper refers to those bonuses: “My bank, HSBC, seems to think that it is reasonable to give bonuses worth more than I earned in my whole teaching career. Last week I received a letter telling me the bank is no longer giving interest on my account. Time to change bank, I think”. The paper translated the banker’s rise into figures that are more meaningful to the ordinary person – the CEO at HSBC will receive a bonus  rise of £32,000 per week! And even the 239 lesser bankers at HSBC who are each receiving an annual bonus of £1 million will still be earning in a single bonus payment more than a teacher could expect to earn in a career spanning 35 years. I can’t help thinking of John F Kennedy’s comment that “Modern cynics and sceptics... see no harm in paying those to whom they entrust the minds of their children a smaller wage than is paid to those to whom they entrust the care of their plumbing” Clearly, the government and the public at large are comfortable with paying the people who look after their money hugely more than the man or woman who looks after their children. It says much about our society's values. And, finally, only a couple of weeks ago I scratched my head in confusion when I read that Barclays Bank has pushed up staff bonuses by 10% despite seeing both its revenue and profit falling. In the same announcement the Bank told us that 7,000 UK job cuts will occur this year. In other words some will get an even bigger slice of the pie whilst others get fired – it’s a fast track to the food bank for many. For me, what I find really offensive is that Barclays see no shame in putting out this information side by side - redundancies an huge bonuses. They have made no attempt to hide their actions. Clearly, they have no shame - or, I would suggest, no morals. It is a brazed action -  "Look at us" it is saying "we are untouchable". And they are - for no one will take action.   And in this obscene landscape were the rich really do get richer while the poor might starve I read a few days ago that the UK is the largest market in the world for Ferrari motor cars – and this in the same year that evictions from homes in this country is at an all time high. But despite all this no-one at political level bats an eye lid – they all wring their hands and weep crocodile tears but are not prepared, unlike Luther, to say enough is enough.

Ferrari sales at a record - and so are evictions from homes -
but "Hey, I'm alright Jack"

And it isn't only about bankers or benefits about which politicians wring their hands but do nothing. We, in the UK, live in one of the most unequal societies in the world – even high Tory politicians like Michael Gove accept this and profess to want to change it. In 2012 Gove said: “More than any other developed nation, ours is a country in which your parentage dictates your progress.........those who are born poor are more likely to stay poor and those who inherit privilege are more likely to pass on privilege. For those of us who believe in social justice this stratification and segregation are morally indefensible”.

Three weeks ago the New Statesman ran ran an article about the educational divide in this country and especially the power and influence of the great public schools like Eton in creating not only a governing elite but producing a skewed society rooted in that educational divide. The article (by David and George Kynaston) concerned itself with what it called the “7% problem”  the small percentage of people who dominate wealth and British public life. There was widespread approval from across the spectrum of the article and the following week a number of prominent people responded – Lord  Adonis, the Labour peer, Tony Little the head master of Eton, Antony Seldon the Master of Wellington College, Tristram Hunt the Labour party’s education spokesman. All these shakers and movers praised the authority of the article and accepted that there was, indeed, a profound problem. Last week Michael Gove responded on behalf of the government. He, too, fully accepted the article’s arguments and decried the situation in the UK. Everyone wrung their hands, everyone agreed that this cannot continue. But no one was prepared to actually do anything about it. No one was prepared to say this cannot, under any circumstances continue we must stop it now. No one whispered that it is an immoral and unethical situation which shames our national consciousness and that it must be subject of immediate legislation. No one was prepared to simply remove the problem – get rid the great public schools and close down the private education sector so that a “good” education cannot be bought. No one was prepared to stop these institutions having the dreadful and corrosive effect they have on the life and well being of the nation. No one was prepared to face up to those with power and wealth and say "Sorry, you can no longer buy advantage - educational indulgencies are not for sale any more". In fact, bizarrely and obscenely the favoured course of action from all these shakers and movers was that we can’t do away with the public schools so we’ll just have to make every school like a public school.

R.H .Tawney would have recognised all this when he commented a century ago: “The exploitation of the weak by the powerful, organized for the purposes of economic gain, buttressed by imposing systems of law, and screened by decorous draperies of virtuous sentiment and resounding rhetoric, has been a permanent feature in the life of most communities that the world has yet seen”. It was true in Luther’s time and it is still true in modern Britain. When will someone say stop?

Does no-one think that something is wrong? Is there not a Martin Luther out there to say enough is enough? It seems that the churches are trying – and so they must. In these days of corporate and global power ever ready to usurp and influence government policy for its own ends society is facing an uphill struggle. The churches have a crucial role in reminding politicians, governments and we as individuals of our responsibilities – ethical, religious, political and social. And we in turn have an obligation to listen and act. I believe that this is especially true today since, certainly the UK, there is little difference between the parties – each scrambling to appeal to an increasingly apathetic, cynical and disengaged electorate.

The Obama's help out at the local Washington
food bank. I wonder if he was squirming inside
as he served this lady. If not, he should have been.

Martin Luther stood up for what he passionately believed in. He made his feelings known and was prepared to take the consequences. Given the age and religious times in which he lived he was not only putting his physical self at risk but also his spiritual self. In 1521 he was compelled to attend the Diet of Worms on the orders of the Pope. Luther knew that although he had been provisionally granted safe passage that his life and indeed his soul was in very real danger. He was expected to recant his Ninety Five Theses under threat of possible death and certainly excommunication from the Church. In the beliefs of the time this would cast his soul into purgatory. Luther's works were placed on a table. He was then asked if they were his and whether he wanted to recant any of them. Luther requested time to think over his reply and the next day he answered with the well-known speech: "Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me, Amen!"  Does anyone in the UK today have a conscience like Luther’s? I suspect that for most of our politicians and society’s leaders conscience is a word little utilised. And, to use the words from Isaiah, “we like sheep” follow, too cosy to bother. In the words of the old saying “Pull up the ladder Jack, I’m alright.”

A local Nottingham food bank

A few weeks ago I seriously toyed with the idea of re-joining the Labour Party and perhaps even the Fabian Society who have always been very much the conscience of the Labour movement. Maybe, I told myself, I should put my money where my mouth is, try to influence policy, give Ed Miliband a chance. But on the very day I thought that I might get out my credit card and sign up I also read one of his latest policy announcements. It was the same old populist stuff: bash schools and teachers and rage against the nasty, lazy and profligate public services from whom we must all be saved, give power to the people by allowing them to take their local hospital to task.  There was no resounding strike against great wrongs such as inequality or bankers. There was no mention of the 7%. There was no mention of the obscenity of food banks in one of the richest nations on the planet Nowhere was there a rage against the City or a declaration to offend those with wealth by removing their bonuses or closing their fee paying schools. It sounded like the Conservative manifesto in a bold font from a Labour leader! I have absolutely no doubts that Miliband is a “good guy” whose heart is in the right place. I believe that he acts honestly, honourably and sincerely but when I read his “policies” I knew he was no Martin Luther. There was no rage, intent or promise to right the obvious wrongs.

In today’s Guardian Chris Huhne reflects that “It is humbling to see protesters in Kiev's Independence Square prepared to lay down their lives for freedoms we take for granted”. The situation in the Ukraine is very different from our own here in the cosy UK but I can’t help wondering whether we have the guts and the belief any more to fight for what is right. Most of us have our flat screen TV, we can afford a holiday, run a nice car (although perhaps not a Ferrari!), we can fill our supermarket trolleys, enjoy a meal out.....what is there not to like? And most of us are content, all is right with the world. We conveneiently forget those that can’t enjoy our lifestyle and need to go to the food bank. True, we might make a donation to the food bank to even use our credit card or buy our indulgence when we donate to some charity or other.  We happily tolerate and forget the skewed society caused by the unfair education system since, because like Jack, in the old saying, "we are alright". We might moan in envy, but then we go along with the bankers getting their millions because we are comfortable. And we tolerate and accept all these ills which corrode the very fabric of our society – we ignore what is wrong - because it is too much effort. In short, we and our leaders do nothing.

I was yesterday reminded of a story of Lyndon Johnson when he took over the Presidency of the USA after the assassination of Kennedy. I had first read this when I read  Robert Caro's biography of LBJ a year or two ago but it leapt out of the page at me again as I read Gary Young’s column in the Guardian. Young was asking the question “What is Obama’s presidency for” – it had promised so much and yet has delivered so little commented Young. “A few days after JFK's assassination,” wrote Young “ Johnson sat in his kitchen with his key advisers working  on his first speech to Congress. It was the evening of Kennedy's funeral – Johnson was now president. The nation was still in grief and Johnson.....was not yet able to move into the White House because Kennedy's effects were still there.

LBJ may have had lots of failing
but he got things done.

He had been a hapless vice-president; now he had to both personify and project the transition from bereavement to business as usual. In the midst of the cold war, with Vietnam brewing, the Kennedy administration had been trying to get civil rights legislation and tax cuts through Congress. There was plenty of business to attend to. Johnson's advisers were keen that he introduced himself to the nation as a president who could get things done......they implored him not to push for civil rights in this first speech, since it had no chance of passing. "The presidency has only a certain amount of coinage to expend, and you oughtn't to expend it on this," said one of the wise, practical people around the table.

Johnson, who sat in silence at the table as his aides debated at last interjected: "Well, what the hell's the presidency for."

"First," he told Congress a few days later, "no memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honour President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long." Over the next five years Johnson would go on to sign the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, launch the war on poverty and introduce Medicaid (medical assistance for low-income families) and Medicare (for seniors). That's what his presidency was for....”  The will was there and it was backed up by action.

"Here I stand...." Luther at the Diet of Worms.

LBJ grasped the nettle and so far as he was able tried to right obvious wrongs - and, I suspect,  whole generations of Americans have since been glad of it. Martin Luther would have approved. The churchmen who complained about the UK government’s actions in the past few weeks would have understood.  Things can be changed if there is a will. Unfortunately I don’t believe politicians have any real intention and, sadly, I don’t think that most of the rest of us really care. All the issues that we so often complain about - bankers bonuses, the holding of the country to ransom by global corporations, the influencing of government by the powerful, the inequalities of society caused by a blatantly unfair and skewed education system, the vilification of the less powerful and well off by right wing and other wealthy organisations are all scars on our society - but we have no real will to change them. There is no rage. Both we and they are too busy feathering our own nests happy to use our credit cards to buy the good life, to occasionally salve what conscience we have by making the odd donation to some charitable cause but not, unlike Luther, wanting our cage rattled too much and certainly not concerning ourselves with such matters as morals, ethics or eternal eternal salvation!