The Trinity made comprehensible.

 

Tomorrow is Trinity Sunday

I have two special reasons for being interested in the doctrine of the Trinity. One, because I live in a row of houses called Trinity Terrace, (so named because it says in my deeds that the builder bought the land from the ”Masters and Fellows of the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity, Cambridge.)  The other arises from an incident when I was at junior school.

I was a fairly biddable school boy, not so much from innate goodness as fear – corporal punishment was rampant - but one occasion when I transcended the rules and suffered the indignity of being “kept in” (thankfully not the “double ruler”) sticks in my mind.

The church in which I was baptised and sang in the choir from about the age of seven had Choral Matins as its main Sunday morning service.  Every month in which there were five Sundays, we sang on the final, extra Sunday the Athanasian Creed instead of the usual Apostles’ Creed.  Whether there was some theological basis for this, or it was just a quirk of the vicar, I have no idea.

When I was in Standard 3, as it was then called, around the age of nine, the teacher said something, I don’t remember what, which trigged me to whisper to my desk-mate “the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost, incomprehensible and yet there are not three incomprehensible, but one incompressible.”

“Peter Wrigley, were you talking?”

“Er, well er . .”

“You will stay in at playtime and write down what you said.”.

So I did.  How I spelt it I wouldn’t like to say.  Nor have I any idea what Miss Parr made of the bit of paper I nervously handed to her, but I was allowed to go out and finish playtime.

So, with that background, allow me to explain what I believe is a rational basis of that which St Athanasius found incomprehensible.

God the Father.

It is not irrational to suppose that somehow the universe began.  I hesitate to write that some one or some thing began it, because that implies a person or a physical entity.  Better, I believe, to think of a cause. Better still, a force. 

There is nothing particularly modern about this idea.  The Church of England’s  Thirty-nine Articles, agreed in 1562, stipulate that “God” is not an old man with a long beard, resting on a bed on the Seventh Day, but “without body , parts or passions.”

Maybe the force has a purpose, or maybe not.  Maybe the force is benevolent, or maybe evil, or perhaps indifferent to what happens to the universe and the creatures in it.

Maybe the force intervenes in the universe and the lives of the creature in it.

Maybe not.

Maybe we shall never know.

But it is probably best for humankind to think positively and assume benevolence.

God the Son

The world’s different religions have different interpretations of the nature of the force. or forces, where, as with the Ancient Greeks and Romans, there were assumed to be numerous Gods, each with a different purpose. Our tradition is based on the opinions and teachings of what we call the Old Testament Prophets and what many believe to be the final revelation in the life teaching and example of Jesus Christ, along with  the writers of the New Testament Epistles.   Some regard additions by later sources  (eg the Early Fathers  Julian of Norwich, George Fox, various Papal pronouncements, Don Cupitt) as adding to our understanding.  Muslims go further and believe that Mohammed (peace be upon him) has the final say.

From these revelations we learn that the Force is benevolent, can be simply described as “love,” is endlessly forgiving and, “like a father,” wanting us to love even our enemies and care for each other and the creation.

God the Holy Ghost

Most Christians have already moved on from ghosts and now refer to the “Holy Spirit.” I suggest we can now take a further step and refer to the "Force."  The Force is still at work in the world (maybe even the Universe) and is available, if we so wish, to latch on to in order to help us lead the kind of lives we are intended to live: to strengthen our resolve and to protect us from any “perils and dangers” we might encounter.  This, again is not a fanciful idea.  We all find “safety in numbers” and assume that associating with others with similar aims by some mysterious means creates a bond, a force,  which strengthens and enables us in fulfilling our goals.  Regiments try to embolden their soldiers by appealing to its  “spirit,” traditions and ceremonies: football supporters  assume that cheering the teams creates  a force on spurs them on to victory.

Star Wars provides us with the modern version:  “The Force be with you.”

QED.

Or “Amen.”

It’s not incomprehensible, but perfectly logical and believable.

The Spending Review

 In a recent article on Liberal Democrat Voice (What Rachel is Doing Right, 9^th June) Sir Vince Cable, who was Business Secretary in the Coalition Government, describes  the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, as  “competent, decent and economically literate.”  He itemises three reason for praising her.

1.    1. She has succeeded in persuading the Treasury to regard government expenditure for investment purposes as separate from current expenditure.  This it has been traditionally reluctant to do.  Gordon Brown circumvented the prohibition by the expensive PFI scheme, for which we are still paying dearly.  Serious proposals for public investment during the Coalition were blocked by Treasury resistance, but, on this, M/s Reeves has broken the mould – and “the markets” (as we can see today) have not cried “foul.”

2.    2. She has insisted on balancing current expenditure with current tax revenues.  This has been difficult for a Labour Chancellor since there are obvious Labour priorities  (eg the two child limit, among many others) which ought to be scrapped.  However, Cable recognises that,  after the Truss experience, confidence in the UK’s economic probity  is no longer sufficiently great to risk flouting conventions.  As pointed out above, “the markets” have recognised this.

3.   33.  She has recognised the unfairness of the present distribution of income and wealth in the British economy, with the elderly and established  more than comfortable while the young struggle to achieve the normal necessities of life (a home and a secure job).  She has tried to move the balance  in a more equitable direction by abolishing the universal Winter Fuel Allowance (WFA) for pensioners and the farmland  exemption from inheritance tax. Cable does not go into detail on these two measures so the following justifications are my own:

a)    The WFA for all pensioners was largely a waste of money.  There are about 10 million pensions and 8 million of us are very comfortably off.  When  the “bung” was introduced by Gordon Brown in the late 1990s the Liberal Democrats criticised it as “badly targeted”  Labour’s exemption from the abolition for those pensioners receiving pension credit covered only the bottom 1 million and the next million still needed help, so it was still badly targetted  However the new limit of “annual income less than  £35 000" is absurdly high. Labour got the sums wrong in the abolition and is now being over-profligate in compensation.

b)    The purpose of the exemption from inheritance tax on farmland was to avoid rich people buying land in order to ring-fence their wealth.  This should have been emphasised, and some method of exempting genuine farmers (eg an “active farmer” test as suggested  by Tim Farron) included.  Again, not thought through, and public relations.

Reactions to the spending review have been fairly predictable.  The Tories ignore the distinction between current  expenditure and investment and bleat about the increased borrowing costs (forgetting that most of the payments on government debt come to ourselves, some of it even to me in my modest holdings of National Savings Certificates, and to many in the form of their pension funds).  Conservative  Shadow Chancellor,  Mel Stride, thunders that taxes will rise in October to fund this profligacy.  Well, of course they will, and about time too, not to compensate for profligacy but to repair fourteen years of neglect.

The Liberal Democrats, more constructively, point out that much of the welcome increase in funding for the NHS will continue to be wasted on bed blockers who no longer need hospital treatment but for whom no places in the inadequate care system can be found.  We really cannot continue to ignore this gap in our social provision (and somehow the money has to be found, be the provision private or public.)

 The Labour Government has had a bad first year because it has been hemmed in by the promises of no tax rises it felt were necessary to win the election. In my view they have missed two golden opportunities to break the promise: the “discovery” of the £22bn black hole and, even more credibly, the withdrawal of the USA as the guarantor of the defence of Europe.  The latter in particular was an ideal opportunity  to declare the need for extra taxation, and the right wing would hardly have been in a position to make credible protest.  

 Having missed these two opportunities I hope labour will manage to confect some excuse to enable us to pay for the level of public services we deserve.  Be that as it may, I believe the review shows  they are now steering closer to the right track.

Migration: another shooting in the foot

 For most of my lifetime  the UK has had a Balance of Payments problem.  This is not the much discussed  current problem of the government's expenditure exceeding its income, thus appearing to require  stern "fiscal rules" (though we've had that as well) but the balance of our our external payments.  As a country we have persistently spent more money on the products of other countries, imports,  than we have earned by selling  British products to other countries, exports.

 Imports have to be paid for in foreign currencies.  Exports earn foreign currencies. The two must, in the long run, balance.

One of the main methods of bringing the two into balance has been to make our exports cheaper and so more attractive, and our imports dearer and less attractive, by lowering the value of  our currency , devaluation

When I was a boy we casually referred to five shillings (a quarter of a £, or now 25p) as  "a dollar."  That was because  $4 could be bought for £1.  (To be exact, slightly more, $4.03). A half crown (2/6d) was "half a dollar" in schoolboy slang. 

In 1947 the government devalued the pound to £1=$2.8.   So British products abroad become roughly 1/3 cheaper, and imported products 1/3 dearer.

 However, it didn't do the trick in the long run so in 1963 we devalued again to £1=$2.4 

That didn't do the tick either, and from 1972 onwards the £ has been allowed to float: find its own level according to market forces.  Today it is valued a $1.35.

If you  plot those figures on a graph: 4.03. 2.8. 2.4, 1.35,  against time you will have an accurate picture of the efficiency of the British economy over the past 80 years under the stewardship of the two major parties.

 To continue this simple guide.

 We automatically think of exports as products sold abroad.  But they needn't be.  If foreigners come here and buy products  that is as much an export as sending the product to their country  to sell it there.  Tourists coming here and spending their money  on hotel bills, transport, restaurants, theatres,  souvenirs etc.  are therefore adding to the "exports" side of the Balance of payments.

Similarly when we go abroad and send our money, which we have changed into foreign currencies, that is the equivalent of importing.

So, to get to the subject of the post,  foreign students coming here  to buy our education, and while they are here renting rooms, eating meals, travelling, going to the gym, buying clothes, going to concerts etc, are making a contribution to our export earnings.

On Thursday a substantial decrease in the the level of immigration was announced.  Sir Keir Starmer took the credit: Labour's policies were working.  The Tories insisted that the reduction was actually the result of their policies. 

A large part of the reduction is due to increased restrictions of foreign students.

 Having spent all of the post war years making desperate  attempts to boost our exports, the two major parties are now competing  to claim the credit for cutting them

 You couldn’t make it up.

 

Language! No change there then.

The one thing Labour promised us in last July's election campaign was "change."  But most  people, whose major obsession is not politics,  can be forgiven for thinking that what we've been getting is the mixture very much as before.

 This is particularity true of  of the political debate itself, which continues to be conducted in intemperate, inappropriate and exaggerated language.

 Last week was immigration week.    Sir Keri Starmer, not in the heat of the moment but at his podium flanked by two Union Jacks, solemnly intoned that a "squalid" chapter of our politics (allegedly open immigration) had damaged our country "incalculably" and that Britain risks becoming "an island of strangers."  That last comment at least will make a fitting addition to the distasteful  Tory list of Enoch Powell’s "rivers of blood,"  Boris Johnson's "piccaninnies" and Theresa May's "hostile environment." 

This week started as Brexit-reset week.  Sir Keir hailed his achievement as "putting Britain back on the world stage," Rachel Reeves declared us now "the world's best placed country on trade."

 What excessive nonsense: it is nothing of the sort.  Nor is it the "betrayal" or "surrender" that the right-wing press dutifully insists.

 It is a measured but modest step in the direction  of improving the botched settlement by which the Johnson government "got Brexit done."

 For a restrained and rational discussion on the benefits of immigration please see the previous five posts.

 Here is a brief assessment of the of the changes the "reset" has made to our relations with the EU.

1. On everything, much of the detail still remains to be settled.

2.  On defence: we shall co-operate, may get a share of the EU procurement budget, but will have to pay a contribution.   A useful move in the right direction.

3. On mobility: only for youth, and nothing settled as yet.  

4.  On Erasmus +  (students and apprentices):  nothing at all

5.  On export of animals and plants: substantial reduction of SPS checks.  A major advantage for farmers and food exporters.

6.   On greater freedom for artists( musicians  etc.) to tour:  nothing at all 

7.  On mutual recognition of qualifications: nothing at all.

8.  On fishing : a curate's egg - great for Scottish salmon farmers, not so good for the fishing fleets

9.  On energy: should result in lower electricity bills.

 The discussions are to be repeated annually.  We have made a positive start, re-established ourselves as credible and supportive partners, though still very firmly a "third country," and cleared  the decks for future progress.

Let's hope the discussions and reporting of the completion of this round, and preparations for the next, can be conducted in a restrained and patient manner.  Personally I should like us to rejoin tomorrow, but that is not (yet) politically possible  Nor do I think the EU would at present be wiling to accept us back.  But slow and steady may eventually restore sanity. 

Part of our problem is the speed with which the debate moves.  One day it's  migration, then  BREXIT, then Garry Lineker, then starvation  in Gaza, and  today Trump's attempt to bully Cyril Ramaphosa, and two young Jews assassinated in the US. Perhaps hyperbole is the only way of catching our attention.  We never give ourselves time for thoughtful discussion

Welcome Immigrants (5)

 A final word from "Bridges not Borders" (See previous posts)

 " We may not be able  to open all borders tomorrow, but we need to make a start.   We need to begin working towards achieving the conditions that could make this a reality, for example greater global wage parity, universal standards for workers' rights and meaningful cross-border  environmental protections.    We must strive  for a more equal world where people are not forced to migrate, but instead have the right to move  as well as not to move.

 This might all sound  like a naive Utopian dream, but so too did many major struggles  for social change in the past.  We must start imagining  in the way those who went before us did, those people who fought for  a very different world at a time when it seemed impossible." 

These extracts from the "Global Justice Now" pamphlet were written by Aisha Dodwell.

 For further and  better particulars  see: globaljustice.org.uk/migration. 

If you agree with the sentiments, if not all the detail, why not join "Global Justice Now," 66, Offley Road, London SW9 0LS (020 7820 4900)?

Welcome Immigrants (4)

 Yet more from "Bridges not Borders."  (see previous posts)

 "Immigration control, in the modern sense of the term  is a relatively recent concept.  Before the 1962 Commonwealth Immigration Act, people from places like Kenya and India  could come freely to the UK.

 We rarely hear  opponents of free movement arguing to curtail their own rights to move, live,  work , study or travel where they please.  Arguments for preventing free movement  are always presented  with the assumption that  it's the movement of "others" that's being stopped.

 The current system  of border controls is such that the accident of birth determines the extent  to which you can exercise the right to free movement.

Someday it will be considered unthinkable  that people were once  denied a basic right  based entirely on where they were born.  It is to the 21st Century  what slavery was to the 19th Century, or racial segregation was to the 20th Century."

 For further and better particulars see: :globaljustice.org.uk/migration

Welcome immigrants (3)

 More from "Bridges not Borders" (see previous post)

 "The first [take control of our the borders] law in Britain , the 1905 Aliens Act, gave Britain the power  to  'prevent the landing of undesirable immigrants ', widely acknowledged  to have been aimed at curbing Jewish immigration  from Eastern Europe, the 'unwanted migrants' of that era.

Likewise Britain’s border regime today is focused on keeping out undesired people.*  Punitive immigration policies mean that families are routinely  torn apart  and people are criminalised  simply for seeking safety or a better life.

Many of these people have been forced to move  becasue of conflict, poverty, persecution, injustice or climate change.  The UNHCR estimates  that 20 people every second are forced to flee their homes.  

But rather than provide  safety and access, today's borders  imprison people within historic lines  drawn by Europeans on a map.  With global inequality  at unprecedented levels , modern borders (which segregate  who can and can't access resources and opportunity) have become a form of global apartheid."  

* Yesterday's Guardian reported that lots of rich Americans are buying properties in and moving to the Cotswolds in order to escape  the US under President Trump. No one seems too worried about  them.  As a letter writer commented,  they are "relocating " not migrating.

For further and better particulars see globaljustice.org.uk/migration

Welcome immigrants (2)

 More from "Bridges, not Borders" (see previous post.)

Lift up your eyes unto the hills: 

"Open borders would make the world a richer place .

 A study* by economist Michael Clemens  shows how opening the world's borders  could as much as double  global GDP.  

That's because immigrants  aren't just workers, they also create jobs  and contribute to society . 

Of course, the economic value of a human being  should never be the basis  for allowing them to exercise the right to move.  

And despite  economic growth  being a problematic measure  of wellbeing , we can at least  be re-assured  that the world’s economy  wouldn't collapse under  a system of open borders.

 In fact  it could have an equalising effect on global wealth distribution."

 

Yes, i know this all sounds a bit utopian, but it indicates the direction in which a progressive government with a vision should be taking us.  Pandering to populist politics is taking us in the wrong direction.

 *Economics and Emigration: American Economic  Association 2011

For further and better particular see: globaljustice.org.uk/immigration 

Welcome, immigrants. Thanks for coming.

 

Personally I’m glad to live in a country  where people want to come to rather than escape from.  I like to list how immigrants and the children (and now possibly the grandchildren) of immigrants, enable and enhance my lifestyle.  They deliver my morning paper, drill, fill and maintain what’s left of my teeth, cut my hair, clean my car, dispense my prescriptions, and provide about two thirds of my treatment on the NHS, the organist and about half the choir (and until recently the vicar) of the church I attend,  two of my favourite restaurants, and much more besides.  Grateful thanks to them all.

 The last thing we need is a continuation of the "hostile environment" so beloved of Theresa May (astonishingly the daughter of a vicar who managed to get a picture in the papers of herself and her husband either attending or just leaving church about every other week during her period as Prime Minister) and her successors as Tory premiers.  

Yet that is what the Labour party  -THE LABOUR PARTY -  appears to be about to introduce today.  So much for "Workers of the World, Unite."

All  of our principal parties should be standing up and loudly proclaiming the benefits which immigrants bring but, so far, the only one I've heard doing so is the Leader of the Scottish Nationalists.   No wonder Reform, whose major policy seems to be to stir up resentment, is having such success.

 Some ten years ago the pressure group "Global Justice  Now"  (successor to the World Development Movement) published a pamphlet called "Bridges not Borders" which makes the case for global free movement.    In the next few days I intend to publish some extracts from it to counteract the xenophobic selfishness which is likely to dominate our media.  Here's a start:

 "Let's be honest, most people are already  in favour of free movement . . .at least for themselves.  We rarely hear  opponents of free movement  arguing to curtail their own rights  to move  live, work, study or travel  where they please.    Arguments for preventing free movement  are always presented  with the assumption  that it's the movement  of "others" bing stopped."

I'm a good example.  I have lived and worked in three other countries in addition to the UK. As far as I know my contributions to those economies (and perhaps cultures) have been appreciated.  I see no reason why people in the rest of the world shouldn't have the same experiences and opportunities if they so wish.

 

For further and better particulars see: globaljustice.org.uk/migration

 

VE Day: at what price?

 

There can’t be many veterans left who actually fought in the 2^nd World War, and not many more of us who can remember what we did on VE Day. 

I was seven years old on the 8^th May, 1945, and on holiday in Scarborough with my parents and little sister, so it must have been Whitsuntide Week.  I have two memories.

 Outside Scarborough station was (maybe still is) an obelisk or column, and it was lit up with blue strip lighting on each of its four faces. That was the first time I had seen “neon” lighting. 

The second is that there was a happy  atmosphere and we wandered around with another family group singing a song with the opening line: “Let him go, let him tarry let him sink or let him swim.”  Nothing to do with the war but presumably popular at the time.

 I am indebted to the Liberal Democrat peer, William Wallace for what, in  addition to honouring the sacrifices made to achieve the victory, we might also remember at this time.  He suggests President Theodore Roosevelt’s   “Four Freedoms” speech in which he  explained to Congress why the Allies  were fighting:

“ We look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression–everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way–everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want–which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear–which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor–anywhere in the world. …

The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

William also reminds us that five months before, Roosevelt and Churchill had signed the ‘Atlantic Charter’ – drafted by the British, revised by the Americans – which set out their shared aims in the war.  

 ‘…their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other; they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned; … they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;….’

I don’t know if President Trump will be present at today’s ceremonies, but if he is it would be useful to bring these to his attention, especially the first three lines of the Atlantic Charter quoted above.

It is also useful to remind out selves of the price in lives lost that the allied countries experienced in achieving the victory.

The approximate tally in the larger countries is  as follows:

Russia: 24 000 000

Poland: 5 600 000

India: 2 100 000

France: 567 000

UK: 450 000

USA: 418 000

  Given these figure we can perhaps better understand why Russia may feel “resentful” that the  New World Order established for which they had paid so much should become shaped essentially to support the interests of the USA and its closest allies. 

More tact and efforts to include them in the post war settlement might have produced a happier and more permanent settlement.  Have any Russian  representatives been invited to the commemorations?  If so that could reduce present tensions.

As this will undoubtedly be the last decadal celebration of VE Day when any of those who actually fought in the war are alive, I hope the UK will now stop trying to revive memories of  our past presumed greatness, and look forward to the modest centurions we can still make to building a world more in keeping with Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms.