(Church Material [continued])[29th March 1987]

[Redbook3:74-75][19870329:1210x](Church Material [continued])[29^th March 1987]

19870329.1210(BST)

[continued]

Compassion for the truly wretched* arises naturally out of the knowledge of Christ within the Individual. Compassion produces pressure for action to help the wretched be less wretched. There are two ways to do this. {1} One is to change their attitude to fit their circumstances. This is not popular in politically conscious times: but it may do more for spiritual awareness. {2} The other is to change their circumstances to fit their attitude. [2]{a} This may be done by direct action: help the wretched, heal him, lift him up, give him your money and clothes. This satisfies the Unifying urge of the Christ, eases the burden of your own wealth, and may alleviate a little of the wretchedness. [2]{b} Or it may be done by indirect action: put pressure on others to help the wretched, or take away their** resources in order to help the wretched. The net result of this is likely to be more of Separation than Unity, as it will give rise to resentment instead of Love.*** Only those who put material considerations above Spiritual development will regard this as the right way.

What if people are dying of starvation? If you care, go and help them yourself, or give your help to those who can, if you think not enough is being done; show others what is happening, and what needs to be done, and let Love and Harmony work on them. If they are immune to Love and Harmony, if Christ is not in visible to them within themselves, and you cannot awaken that inner sense in them, the starving will die, and go back to God; but you, oh Church, have failed in your task, which was to awaken every man to the presence of Christ within him. There are no short cuts.

*[See last previous entry.]

**[i.e. the others']

***I do, however, think that compromise is indicated here: starving adults and sick children are likely to be distracted from God, so {1} and {2}{a} must go together. My query is against {2}{b}. <890930>

****My own circumstances, and those of Britain, have changed since this was written. I should have thought it was permissible to vote for tax increases which one would oneself be prepared to pay if one was taxable. Also, current poverty and policy involves very real distress of a kind which can hardly be alleviated by the individual (e.g. Health Service delays, fuel taxes). <930331> [I believe that this entry with the last previous one is addressed to the Church, so does not suggest that individuals should not lobby governments (or indeed that the Church itself should not alleviate poverty). The question was whether the Church as such should specifically lobby governments to alleviate poverty.]

[cf. [Redbook3:152-153][19870409:1345g](SPIRITUAL ETHICS)[9th April 1987].<20160124>]

[continues]

[PostedBlogger19122015]