A woman somewhere in Africa, surrounded by dust resulting from drought, holds her dying child in her arms.  There is nothing she can do.  There is nowhere she can look for help.  There is no food.  A person comes by from the western world, from Australia.  He speaks of how many people in Australia speak of ‘the politics of envy’.

As we know from the response to Labor’s so-called attacks on the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, over certain issues related to his wealth, Malcolm Turnbull replied by saying they were indulging in ‘the politics of envy’.  Many Australians think that this was a good reply for it is not a criticism of the wealthy, it is a criticism of those who criticise the wealthy.  Many Australians want to believe that they have the chance to be wealthy too, so they mindlessly support the right of the rich to be rich.  When the Australian explains to the African woman what this phrase means, she is surprised. 

‘What is wrong with me wanting those who are wealthy to help feed my children and my people?  The Australian goes on to explain that there are some in the Western world who think like her.  For example Senator Sanders in his debate with Hillary Clinton said ‘what democratic socialism is about is saying that it is immoral and wrong that the top 1/10 of 1% in this country (America)… Own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%.  That it is wrong’.

And what about you?  If you were the African woman and your child was dying of starvation would you appreciate people talking about ‘the politics of envy’?

Jesus told a similar story to that of the African woman, in the parable of ‘the rich man and Lazarus’ (Luke 19:19 – 31).  Jesus did not speak of the politics of envy but rather that the rich man was destined to hell.  A somewhat different response to ours today.  Whether destined to hell means eternal punishment or a time of punishment, is an issue for another day.  It is sufficient to say that I believe that the rich will suffer after death because the poor of the world have been neglected.  In a Western country, such as Australia, this means many of us and I include myself.  But we with limited riches can do far less than those of the world who have so much.

When Senator Sanders says that this situation is immoral, he is speaking fairly gently.  I want to argue that it is criminal.  In a sense all wealth is tainted and the more wealth you have the more tainted it is.  It is usually gained at someone else’s expense through overvaluing one’s own worth and undervaluing someone else’s.  It also means using our cultural heritage largely for our own gain and with only the trickle-down effect of real value to others.  By cultural heritage I mean all that we have been born into: the land with its riches, the benefits of centuries of development in all the various walks of life, in other words all that we have received in the time that we live in.  We do not seem to consider that everything we have needs to be seen as a gift for the common good, for the Commonwealth.

So rather than respecting our new prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, for his wealth as many Australians do, I see him as a spiritual criminal and despite his talk about the importance of the individual and freedom that ultimately he supports his rich cronies.  For example, the law passed just recently exempting rich people with huge private wealth from having to have their tax and other related matters subject to public scrutiny.

When we, as a society, seek to find solutions to the radicalisation of Islamic youth, we might well look at how we help to cause the atrocities we so abhor by supporting the economic values that we sometimes think are moral. This is not to imply in anyway that violence is justified.

Unfortunately, our incapacity both as a society and part of western civilisation, to address issues of ultimate truth, which includes considering the status of the teaching of Jesus in a multicultural society and, for that matter, teachings of other religions, reduces considering our life in the face of eternity to a matter of personal faith, with no real social relevance.  For example, the discussion by some politicians in the recent Liberal leadership spill, that their faith was irrelevant to their work in public life.

It is time for us to reconsider using the criticism of ‘the politics of envy’, as a way to put down those who suffer from the gross inequality in the world and those who really want to do something about the gross inequality.

The rich man and Lazarus

19 “There was a rich man who dressed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 But at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus whose body was covered with sores, 21 who longed to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. In addition, the dogs came and licked his sores.

 22 “Now the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And in hell, as he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far off with Lazarus at his side. 24 So he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish in this fire.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things and Lazarus likewise bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish. 26 Besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed between us, so that those who want to cross over from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.’ 27 So the rich man said, ‘Then I beg you, father – send Lazarus to my father’s house 28 (for I have five brothers) to warn them so that they don’t come into this place of torment.’ 29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; they must respond to them.’ 30 Then the rich man said, ‘No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 He replied to him, ‘If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”  (Luke 19:19 to 31)