By accepting you will be accessing a service provided by a third-party external to https://blog.alor.org/
The Rules of the Universe Transcend Human Thinking by Betty Luks
My ego received some rather large dents when a couple of loyal readers contacted the editor complaining OnTarget for that week was ‘boring’. After knocking a few of the dents out and recovering some semblance of equilibrium I thought a good deal about the matter and thought that I failed to get my message across as was intended. So here goes… again.
The response is based upon an article which appeared in the OT Christmass issue of December 2004. http://alor.org/Volume40/Vol40No49.htm
In “Releasing Reality” Eric Butler writes:
“One of the most illuminating statements made by C.H. Douglas, one which reveals his proper humility in the search for Truth, was that the rules of the Universe transcend human thinking, and that if the individual wished to live in a world of harmony, he should make every endeavour to discover those rules and obey them.”
It comes as a bit of a shock when one realises that at the last judgement Christ will judge us, not by our great exploits, not by our great ‘faith’ or ‘belief,’ not even for the number of convert ‘scalps’ we have ‘chalked up’, -- but by how we have treated our fellow man:
“I was hungry and you fed me; thirsty and you gave me drink; a stranger and you took me in; in prison and you visited me… Inasmuch as you did it unto one of the least of my brethren you did it unto Me.” Matthew 25.37.
One could say that has always been God’s purpose and policy for the ‘fruits of the earth’. His provisions are there to feed and clothe and house mankind. Put simply they are a means to sustain and maintain Life.
A Great Irish Saint
The article went on to write of the life of a great Irish saint, Saint Brigid, who saw that Christ’s policy concerning the ‘fruits of the earth’ was just that: To give food and drink to the hungry and thirsty and shelter and comfort to the homeless and imprisoned.
There was just one problem, the good Saint was just a little slow in working out how to accomplish her Lord’s intended purposes. She was often in trouble with her father for giving away his goods and stores to beggars in need. Her father, so the story goes, exasperated with her behaviour, determined to sell her to the King of Leinster to grind his corn.
While at the king’s court, Brigid gave away to another beggar her father’s sword! Whereby, the king of Leinster demanded of Brigid, “Why do you steal your father’s property and give it away?” “If I had the power,” answered Brigid, “I would steal your royal wealth, and give it to Christ’s brothers and sisters.”
Now while Saint Brigid wanted to fulfil the Moral Law of Christ, she had violated the Moral Code of that society: “It is wrong to take that which does not belong to you.”
As I understand the history of the British-peoples that was the question uppermost in the minds of those who formulated the Common Law of England. The Common Law of England was the system of law to come out of the Christian centuries.
The question which occupied the minds of those who lived in an ordered Christian community was: How do we reconcile the Moral Law with the Moral Code?
While the Church eventually recognised her as a saint, this strong-willed Irish woman would have understood that what she was doing was wrong according to the Moral Code of the community. She was stealing. The goods and stores were not hers to give away, even though her father was rich in goods and stores and the beggars were poor.
And that is the question that should occupy 21st century Christians: How to reconcile the Moral Law with the Moral Code?
How to reconcile the Moral Law with the Moral Code?
Christian communities took upon themselves the task of bridging the gap between ‘the haves’ and the ‘have nots’, and Brigid also went on to found her own abbey and the community was renowned for its gracious hospitality.
The Anglican Church stated its position in the 1600’s Articles of Religion in the Book of Common Prayer: “A Christian man’s goods are not common as touching right, title and possession of same as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. But it is a Christian man’s duty to give alms liberally according to his ability.”
The Anabaptists of that day taught a form of communism. Alms are/were voluntary contributions to aid the poor and the needy, and many a monastery and convent received endowments from ‘the haves’ for this purpose.
But the principle of agreement, of consent, was important for all concerned
Yes, religious communities did hold ‘all things in common’, (a form of ‘communism’) but the right to choose belonged to the individual - and his vows of poverty were usually made when he entered the order!
In a Christian community, it is the right of the individual to choose or refuse one thing at a time, and over the centuries that principle was reinforced and applied -- and of course, violated!
How to apply the policy
It is one thing to state the principle and to understand the importance of it for right order and social harmony, but it is quite another to work it out in practice for the common good! St. James put it another way but the intent, the policy was the same: “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.”
George-Henri Levesque, one-time Professor of Economics at Laval and Montreal Universities, Canada set out for Canadian Catholics the Church’s position in “Social Credit and Catholicism”:
“To reconcile authority with human liberty as well as to assign accurately their respective prerogatives has always constituted one of the greatest difficulties of social life. For many the problem is solved by sacrificing one of these elements; either authority, as the anarchists; or liberty, as the partisans of permanent dictatorship.”
But, whether it is the State or Saint Brigid, neither had the right to take the father’s goods and stores without his consent, so, when Christians “render unto Caesar,” they should understand modern Caesar has no right to take such a large portion of the goods and stores (in taxes) that there is nothing left to render not only unto God, but in many cases unto a man’s own family!
But what about the industrial/technological and now the robotic revolution?
We must now add the unemployed to the list of the widows and fatherless and at the same time consider those who still have jobs and are working till they drop trying to fulfil all the demands made upon them. It is an impossible human ask.
Automated machines can churn out goods and stores, non-stop, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks every year, without the need for all the human labour available.
So, now the question is: How can we distribute the vast amount of goods and stores churned out by the production system without breaking the Moral Code and yet fulfilling the Moral Law?
Clifford Hugh Douglas gave us the answers, and they are woven throughout that body of teaching known as Social Credit.
The Table of Grace
In time Saint Brigid’s monastery became very famous for its hospitality. The following Table Grace is associated with her name:
I should like a great lake of finest ale For the King of kings.
I should like a table of the choicest food For the family of heaven.
Let the ale be made from the fruits of faith, And the food be forgiving love.
I should welcome the poor to my feast, For they are God’s children.
I should welcome the sick to my feast, For they are God’s joy.
Let the poor sit with Jesus at the highest place, And the sick dance with the angels.
God bless the poor, God bless the sick, And bless our human race.
God bless our food, God bless our drink, All homes, O God, embrace.
Further reading for those who are serious about studying the answer:
“Releasing Reality” by Eric D. Butler.
Social Credit: Philosophy by M. Oliver Heydorn