howtojoin

We Are Unitarians

We are Unitarians, so what do we celebrate?

We celebrate the unique and mysterious life of Jesus,

but not his death as atonement for sin.

We celebrate the insight of the prophet Mohammed, but

not the military battles he won.

We celebrate Buddha's way of peace and Guru Nanak's

message of tolerance and equality.

We celebrate all actions of people who unite faiths,

cultures and beliefs, but not the dogma that bitterly

divides and excludes.

We celebrate the pioneers of social justice, for

speaking out their reason, often at the risk of losing

their career, reputation or even their life.

We celebrate the right of every individual to freely

enquire using their conscience and experience.

We celebrate humility but not the imposition of guilt

and failure.

We celebrate the life-giving sun and the impossibility

of the universe.

We celebrate the potential for good of the local and

global community.

We celebrate the rich diversity of our society.

We celebrate our meetings of peaceful fellowship.

We celebrate the gift of laughter and we celebrate

because there are infinite reasons to celebrate!

MUSIC

We seek it in the crowded streets

A G D

We seek it on the mountain peaks

A G D

To lift the eye and see much more

E A E A

Than faces only seeing the floor

D A E A

We find it in the growth we tend

A G D

We find it in the wars we mend

A G D

Let us know the everyday street

E A E A

And think not high and low don’t meet

D A E A

Let us claim the common ground

D E A

The awe and wonder all have found

D E A

When looking from the mountain tops

D E A

Or where our knowledge always stops

D A E A

We seek it in the crowded street

A G D

To walk the ground with holy feet

A G D

To lift the head and crane the neck

E A E A

Or peer in vain at ancient flecks

E A E A

Nature’s flecks left in our eye

D E A

Or flecks of love in times gone by

D A E A

Sebastian Steed 2004

IN ALL OF US (A HER) Laura Gladstone © December 2003

1) They say that Christ was of virgin born

How is this a possibility?

Because the child, the divine innocent child

Is in all of us, in you and in me

2) They say that Christ could heal the sick

How is this a possibility?

Because the power, the divine healing power

Is in all of us, in you and in me

(chorus)

We kings and queens of this earth are

Trying to remember the souls that we are

How far will we follow our star?

Only we can answer

3) They say that Christ rose from the dead

How is this a possibility?

Because the light, the divine transcendent light

Is in all of us, in you and in me

(Coda)

And what if I told you

That peace is a possibility?

If we recognized the divine inside

All of us, in you and in me.

TALKS GIVEN AT UNITARIAN MEETINGS

©Sebastian Steed 2003

This Sunday, is one of, if not, the most important celebration for the Christian churches. There are Christian denominations that don’t celebrate Christmas such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Pagan origin of Xmas traditions, which is most of them, tend to be frowned on by Evangelists. However, I cannot think or know of a Christian movement that does not celebrate Easter. It is, it seems, the most consuming, joyful and perhaps most crucial festival in the Christian calendar. And the manifest joy of Christians celebrating Easter is something that has appealed to me, it’s something that perhaps I’m slightly envious of - not so much the ‘happy clappy’ type celebration but a genuine and tangible expression of praise and reverence of a miracle. But then, it depends on what your definition of a miracle is. The 60s comedian, Jonathon Miller, said that aspects of everyday life were miraculous, eg. the ability to see and the construction of the eye is a miracle.

As, like all of us here, I have inherited a rational, scientific and critical tradition, which leads me to disbelieve the physical resurrection of Christ. Of course, science and reasoning do not automatically bar you from accepting the resurrection, indeed they have been used to uphold the ‘Gospel truth’ regarding Jesus - the author C S Lewis said that either Jesus was the son of God, or a madman for making such a claim. Well, for reasons that are the basis of another address, I regard that proposition as flawed but I’m not here to dismiss anyone’s convictions. However, it is perhaps important to point out at this stage, that science is susceptible to dogmas just as much as religion is - the Eugenics movement is not the best but just one example.

Now, I’m not here to advocate scientific dogmas over religious ones or vica versa, but if my scientific and rational mind cannot accept the idea of a physical resurrection, which is what the Gospels seem to witness, then what am I left with? An out and out dismissal of the resurrection? Well, no, because even though many of the stories that surround Jesus can be positively revealed as flawed, it is the values conveyed in these stories that cannot be dismissed as easily as the more fanciful notions. And I think the same could be applied to the story of the resurrection. It is not so much the story itself that I feel should be celebrated but the eternal values, or, to borrow the concept of the last meeting, the eternal ‘connections’ of the resurrection story that should lift our hearts and minds.

And connections is the key word because that is how we learn and value by making connections with our life’s experience. Telling the resurrection story to a child or adult will have no true impact or relevance to them unless they can connect it to their life experience. Now of course it’s not every day that we experience someone coming back from the dead but we can all experience what the story mirrors in nature: the sudden appearance of buds on a bare tree, the new lush look of grass after rain, and the spellbinding emergence of life breaking through an egg’s shell. These images, I suspect, would have more spiritual meaning and mystery to a child, and even adults, than the attempt to insist that a crucified man rose from his tomb.

Don’t get me wrong though, I don’t believe we should dispense with the story - and after all, it does boil down to faith, and, in this life, I cannot claim to know that it happened in the way it is told or not. Even if the resurrection account consists of dreams, I don’t feel I could dismiss it because we do not regard our dreams as something that didn’t happen. For now though, that’s not so important as recognising the deeply moving moments of the story and the interpretations to be made.

For example, in all of the ‘official’ versions of the resurrection, Jesus appears first to Mary Magdalene, a former prostitute who I’m happy to believe was his wife. For me, amongst many other things, this says that resurrections and miracles are not just the preserve of magic men or women, or wise people or priests who would be the only ones to understand it, but that it is for everyone to connect with directly, regardless of sex and social position.

In Mark and Luke, Jesus is said to appear to two of the disciples in ‘another form’ or ‘different guise’, in Luke he’s referred to as a ‘stranger’. For me, this positively blurs the distinctions between resurrection, transformation and metamorphosis, which is a theme that runs throughout other religions.

In Luke, the stranger that is Jesus is only recognised as he breaks bread but by then it is too late, he has vanished leaving the disciples to marvel in their revelation. Now I’ve heard it said that in order to create the perfect society, those who have designed it should die at the very moment of its instigation, ensuring that the rules do not serve any particular interest. For me, there is a profound connection between this theory and the account in Luke. We shouldn’t think of sacrifices we make as leading to our own immediate benefit or resurrection, be it metaphorical or material, but a sacrifice made so that others might rise. For me, these connections I’ve made will sustain more my spiritual journey than an unexamined belief in the doctrine of the resurrection.

Now, I feel that every address or sermon needs an appropriate joke, and so here is one given to me by Revd. Brian Anderson, minister of John Pounds Memorial Unitarian church:

A lecturer in Theology set his students a task - to create a joke about Easter which was in perfectly good taste and unlikely to upset people. One student came up with this: A friend of Joseph of Arimathea said to Joseph that it was an immensely generous act to have given Jesus the tomb which he had bought for himself for when he died. Joseph replied, “Not generous at all, I knew he only wanted it for three days at the very most.”

As I alluded to earlier, and I’m sure you’re aware, the resurrection story in the Bible did not appear from a literary or conceptual vacuum, as it were. Nor did the other traditions associated with Easter come from nowhere. If we begin to take apart the Easter ‘experience’, we can identity the historical and cultural threads that have entwined to give us what we know as Easter.

For a start, the word ‘Easter’ has no direct link with the Bible whatsoever. The word comes from the name of an Anglo-Saxon Goddess of Spring, fertility and renewal - Eastre - and whose symbol was a hare - hence the Easter bunny. Further more, the date of Easter changes each year because it is determined by the phases of the moon - a system much older than Jesus and one that he might not necessarily have approved of. And the tradition of giving painted or decorated eggs, again, is much, much older than Christianity.

Resurrection is not exclusive to Christianity, many religions and cultures have resurrection stories. Imagine you’re in Rome during the 3rd Century AD, it is the end of March and, not unusually, there is a festival taking place. You’re told that it is a three day celebration, that occurs every March, of a God who was born of a virgin, died on Friday, and was resurrected. You could be forgiven to assume that you are witnessing the earliest Christian celebration that we now know as Easter. In fact, the God they speak of is not Jesus but one called Attis but whose antecedents bear a striking resemblance. I’m not suggesting, however, that Easter is a ‘rip off’ of this particular precedent because Attis was a version of Gods dating back to long before the Romans. It all ties in with my previous mention of transformation and metamorphosis, the Romans were renowned for adapting their deities to those of the people they conquered. In turn, Christianity graphed on pagan traditions which has given us Christmas and Easter. Not only do religions speak of resurrection but renew themselves through this process of ‘connection’.

Another message for us that I think comes through from this, is that, like some trees now giving up their leaves to create a richer, more fertile soil, we should look to see if there are any beliefs we might be clinging vainly onto that we can dispense with in order to allow new beliefs to grow. Bearing this in mind, perhaps the tradition of making resolutions at the start of a year should be moved to Easter. Perhaps then our resolutions would have more significance and more chance of being kept.

Even in our secular, popular culture we see resurrections occurring - How many times has the persona of James Bond been resurrected? And how many times have political policies been resurrected? The answer is probably too many and not enough times. And of course, right now, the Iraqi people are trying to resurrect their nation under very difficult circumstances. I pray that the spirit of resurrection will be with them and with those that are greatly assisting the desperate situation. I also pray that the sacrifices made in the recent war, be they soldiers or innocent members of Iraqi families, has not been in vain - it would be only just to see an Iraq that reflects and empowers the intelligence and generosity of its people. What is for sure is that right now the Iraqis need more than words.

Much closer to home, there is a debate raging within the Anglican church in Australia as to its position on the old chestnuts of the virgin birth, crucifixion and resurrection, with the focus being on the latter. In yesterday’s West there was an article by the Anglican dean of Perth, Dr John Shepherd, in which he wrote an assertive but constructive attack on the dogmas of the Anglican church. I recommend you read it as I’m sure it will strike a chord with you. Sydney bishop, Dr Glenn Davies, a member of the Anglican Synod’s Doctrinal Panel, said it would be better if John Shepherd started his own church. Well, he doesn’t have to, because there’s one right here in which he would have no trouble fitting into. This man thinks like a Unitarian but is probably not yet aware of our existence. However, it’s sad that the Anglican church is trying to exclude Shepherd’s views when I wouldn’t mind betting that a great number in his congregation thinks the way he does. It is not in keeping with the idea that Easter is a time for renewing and transforming religious communities.

So I put these questions to you, what do we do with these threads that are beliefs, traditions, and stories that construct Easter for us? Separate them and discard all or some, or do we weave them into a different tapestry on our own spiritual loom? And is that picture static or fluid? What connections do you make with Easter, and how, if at all, should it be marked, kept or celebrated?

Unitarian Fellowship, 19/10/03 — Godfrey Barrett- Lennard

Broad issues to share thoughts on:

• What do we mean by love?

• What does love give to us, and to the quality of our lives?

• What are potential hazards of love? Can it lead us astray? Does it need to be accompanied by something else?

• What are the hazards of responding to each other and other groups without love. What part is love playing/not playing in human affairs?

§ What does love and loving mean?

Love is a very basic and compelling human experience that comes in many forms and diverse contexts. It isn’t easy to define: Is it a feeling, or an attitude, or an energy that motivates or carries us along, or is it not exactly any of these, or a varying blend of all of them, and more? One approach to discovering its meaning is to think of all the contexts in which ‘love’ is the word chosen to describe a human experience.

There is romantic love - love between intimate partners, with qualities of passion and of intimacy in sharing felt experience and meaning. This is a love that may mature and evolve to include enjoyment of companioned activity together, a sense of deeply knowing and being known, a sharing with another of feelings toward significant third persons, a revisiting of memories together, and other features you could add.

There is the different quality of love of one’s children, this too evolving as children grow into adulthood and independence.

In counterpart, there is the love of children for their parents, this too evolving; and love for brothers, sisters, grandparents perhaps, and other close kin.

Some of us would speak of love for special friends or a bonded group or fellowship, love for our distinctive community (where the sense of such is strong), even love for our country or ‘homeland’.

From experience, I know it’s possible to develop loving affection for animal friends; for “fellow-children of that same nature that spawned our kind” (from poem Love).

Some people feel deeply attached to their own beloved home, their sanctuary, the personal living space they have fashioned to their taste and values, and with contents that have precious familiarity and meaning to them.

I know directly that it is possible to feel embraced by a natural environment, to feel a loving affinity with the natural world, even with land- and waterscape, especially of one’s homeland portion of the earth.

In some of the circles I have moved in, it is a familiar idea that genuinely caring for and loving others goes hand in hand with an acceptant caring toward self, with a kind of love for one’s own being — as part of a wider love of life and living?

Many experience a love of God, and deep attachment to a system of belief and value that supports and goes with that love.

One quite often hears it said of someone or some group that they have a love of ideas, of the life of the mind, perhaps of great books and art or music. I have a kind of love in the intellectual realm, a longing perhaps to see more deeply into things. A colleague of mine would I think agree that he loves classical music and mathematics.

Sometimes the word love is used with the meaning of liking e.g., we may say we love certain food, we love football or another sport, etc. One of our grandchildren loves to climb trees. I have a younger brother who still loves to run distances (and does so nearly every day). One could add many examples of people saying ‘love’ when they mean that they ‘enjoy’ or truly get a buzz from something. There are lots of positive feelings that we might not seriously identify as love, although there’s no sharp boundary, and one person’s liking might be another’s passion and love.

So, granted that love takes many forms, what do experiences that we can confidently identify as love have in common? I will take a stab at a partial answer: I suggest that love, worthy of the name, involves —

- a considerable depth or strength of feeling, not simply an emotion but feeling with an infusion of meaning which can, at least at moments, be passionate.

- mostly there is a degree of reciprocity of attachment between oneself and that which is loved, at least if it is love of another living being.

- there is a quality not only of liking or prizing but of cherishing what we love.

- loving engagement is also connected to our sense of identity and belonging, of who we are and where we fit in the scheme of things

- loving extends us. What or who we love can be like an enlargement of our being and, if it taken from us, we feel more than deprived but diminished, lesser than we were when living in and (partly) through the transformative engagement of love.

- I’m sure this list is not complete, and I wonder what any of you would add -.

§ I have already touched on what love gives to us, to the quality of our lives, and will just sum up what I’ve implied:

- Love engages us, may even shake us awake when we didn’t know we had been sleeping, brings us more to life

- It contributes to fulfilment of our nature and personal being. It’s possible to live a

more or less separated life but it’s more in our nature to be engaged, active and

involved, and loving is a strong expression of connection. (So, I suppose, is hating..)

- Whatever we love, the whole process tends to bring increased purpose and meaning

to our lives.

- In loving engagement we know what is important to us, more of what we are

about, what we feel, what’s precious to us.

- Love tends to bring us further into our lives, nearer to what might be called a fruition of being.

§ But is love always positive in its expression and impact? What are potential hazards of love?

On the one hand, love can enlighten us, bringing perception and feeling of what really matters to us, with great clarity and force. But, it can also be an arousal that is relatively blind. Unseeing love is not responsive to the whole presence of another (orof a setting, or belief, or god) but a suffusion of feeling arising essentially from within us. In romantic love this suffusion may be sexual desire that has a lot to do with hormones in our bloodstream. In religious fervour it may come at least in part, from a powerful need for something to believe in, perhaps to give meaning to an existence that is otherwise barren and devoid of any fire of engagement. Loving, as experienced, can have an urgency that is demanding, can have a hugely protective quality (as in some parental love), and can channel our lives so that we no longer see sideways as well as fore and aft.

Love has magnetism to which many meanings can be attached. It can help to sanction actions that the person would otherwise consider to be wrong, especially when it is coupled with fear of that which is ‘loved’. Some inquisitors no doubt believed that they acted out of love for their victims’ immortal souls.

How can we discriminate love that is life-enhancing, that self and others are truly nourished by and grow through, as against ‘love’ that can drive and carry us along in a kind of possession that actually diminishes us and those we influence?

My immediate thought about qualities that are present in life-enhancing love are:

- It moves us not just to want, and take, but to hold out and give more of ourselves.

- It brings us into an ignition of brimming and vigorous engagement but does not force or impose itself. Consummation of such love invites and depends on reciprocity.

- It is truly connective, bringing the lov-er and who or what is loved together.

- Love implies arousal but, in life-enhancing love, it is not an arousal of demand, does not bend the other, but sings with them a melody of engagement.

Therefore: such love opens our consciousness (further), extends our knowing and contributes to life wisdom rather than working against it.

§ What are the dangers of living in a world where love plays very little part in human affairs? (First, it threatens all the things I have just mentioned.)

Granted that ‘love’ has its hazards, that it shakes us up and makes life more intense or even risky, what of the alternative of living without love, or in an unloving world? I fear that such a world is what the majority of fellow-humans inhabit — just as much (or even more ) in affluent societies as in economically underprivileged ones.

How would policies and practices change if love was visibly accepted as what mattered and counted most in life, as against the constant emphasis on winning, on the virtues of being in competition, on achieving an ever-growing economy, on the so-called bottom line of economic benefit?

Loneliness and alienation are rife in our world and would become more so without the ‘exceptions’ of love. So too, in regard to conflict between persons, groups and peoples.

Love does not work to rule. It cannot itself be regulated, or engineered, but it can be diminished and undercut — and undervalued in a distracted, seriously unsteady yet formula-driven world. Given a chance, and sometimes when it seems unlikely, love comes forth unbidden from the flowering of our own connective and outreaching human nature.

Well of course, in the Christian calendar, today is the second Sunday in Advent. And in this time of hope, commitment and reflection, I’d like to present you with a revised, albeit very brief, picture of two parties from the Nativity story.

These studies of the three kings and Mary, come from two BBC documentaries that were based entirely on historical research. Not only do they challenge the versions of the Nativity found in the Gospels, but also point out the errors of beliefs and traditions that have grown around the Christian celebration of Christmas that we might take for granted.

Now I’m not out to wreck anyone’s Christmas or pooh-pooh anyone’s deeply held beliefs! By passing on this information I hope to provoke fresh thinking or provide reason to pause for thought during the inevitable frenetic rush of Christmas.

First up, the three kings: For a start they weren’t kings, that’s probably a bit of harmless Christian spin, they were in fact magi — that is, healers, sorcerers and dream interpreters.

2. The Bible doesn’t state how many kings there were - we get the figure 3 from the number of gifts they bore.

3. The kings weren’t led to Bethlehem by a star but rather their journey from, most likely, Babylon was instigated by a lunar eclipse of Jupiter in the constellation of Aries.

4. Jesus may have been as much as two years old when the magi found him and not twelve days as in the Bible.

Well, whether you believe the story of the three kings or magi to be historical fact or simply a tale, as Professor Dierdre Good of the New York General Theological Seminary said, This is a true story in the sense that it conveys values, it is not a story that is verifiable.”

Next, the Real Mary, or Miriam as she would have been known.

1. Because Mary’s life expectancy would’ve been about 45 years, she may have been as young as 12 when she was betrothed to Joseph.

2. The legend of Mary’s virgin birth does not appear until the late 1st Century.

3. Joseph and Mary’s son was neither born in Bethlehem or in a stable (we have St. Francis of Assissi to thank for planting that idea in our heads).

4. Would Mary have really stood at the foot of the cross watching her son die by the most cruel means possible at that time? Somehow, it’s hard to imagine.

So there we have it, a more human but very remarkable version I think, and one that perhaps resonates just as much or even more than the Mary of traditional Faith and divinity.

Dethroning the God of Economism 4 April 2004 Laura Gladstone

_____________________________________________________________

“Money is not a God, so why do we worship it?”

Now if anyone happens to know anyone who is a screen printer who could put this slogan on a T-shirt, I'd really like to know about it, because that's the sort of thing I would like to be wearing around the place.

What is economism?

Now, the topic of today's talk, is dethroning the God of economism. You might wonder what Economism is. Well, have you noticed that everything that we do in society seems to revolve around money, work and the economy? We can't have adequate welfare, aged care and healthcare because it costs too much. We can't have adequate education because it costs too much. We can't fix up the environment, the damage that we've done because of cost. We can't spend time with our family and friends because, well, we've got to work or study, and we can't do certain other things because it's going to affect the economy.

I have to ask the question, "What about people?" We seem to have forgotten that the economy was meant to serve man, and not man to serve the economy.

Economism as a God

Now, bringing the concept of God into it. Terry Pratchett wrote a book called “Small Gods” In that book he had the idea that there was a general consciousness, and Gods come into being from that consciousness because people believe in them and give them power through that belief. The more people believe in a God the more powerful it becomes.

So I'm going to suggest to you that that's what has happened in today's society. We have given so much power and so much thought to the concept I call "Economism" that it has become a God for us.

Attributes of economism

Now Peter has taken us through the different attributes of various Greek, Roman and other ancient gods, so I thought we might have a look at the attributes as I see them of this God of Economism. Since we seem to be serving him, I think we should find out what he is. I'm also going to draw some parallels between Christianity and Economism.

This God is a judgemental God

So what are the attributes of the Christian God? This God is a judgmental God. Now we have heard how Jesus is supposed to be very compassionate, very tolerant and accepting. I somewhat wish that he had passed these attributes on to his father. In the movie “The Passion of Christ” it seems to make it very clear that Christ had to be horribly tortured because of us and our sins. Now if that doesn't indicate a judgmental God to you, I don't know what does.

The God of Economism is also a judgmental God. According to the God of Economism, a person who is professional is worth more than someone who is unemployed. A person who has more is worth more than someone who has less, and if you don't have certain things then you won't be liked by other people.

So again, it's a very judgmental kind of God.

This God is a monopolizing God.

This God is also a monopolizing God. Now Jesus apparently said "I am the way and the truth, the only way to God is through me." So he is the only way. That's what Christianity says. Now interestingly enough, there are also a number of other religions that have this concept, that they are the only way.

Economism is similarly a monopolizing God. According to Economism, we are supposed to be spending all of our time producing consumer goods and services, and the time that we are not spending producing we are supposed to be consuming the goods and services that others have produced.

This God is an expansionist God.

This God is an expansionist God. Now, obviously Christianity has gone all over the globe and has enveloped all sorts of people. Sometimes, in a very bloody fashion, unfortunately. And even more unfortunately it seems that certain Moslem extremist groups now want to follow in the footsteps of Christianity.

Economism arguably has been even more successful in its efforts of expansion. Even people like the Kalahari bushmen of the desert in Africa are now enveloped in a system of global economy. I was actually talking to somebody who studies accounting and she agreed with me that yes, the economy is supposed to be in a state of constant expansion. So we are supposed to produce more and more all of the time. Now this doesn't actually take into account that we as humans are finite beings and our planet is a finite planet. So if we are supposed to be working more and more hours, with less and less people, producing more, and using up all of the resources of the planet, then where does that leave us?

This God is an addictive God.

Lastly, this God is an addictive God. Now just the fact that to be worth anything, because we are sinful beings we have to actually go to God, we have to bring God into our lives to be OK according to the Christian religion. So we are constantly currying favour from the outside through prayer.

Now again, economism is also an addictive God. This is a God that says that we need more and more things from outside of ourselves to make us happy. In this context we should not be surprised that we have so many workaholics because the idea is that we are supposed to be spending our time producing. We shouldn't be surprised that we have spendaholics because the other idea is that we are supposed to be spending our time consuming.

This is actually quite a widespread phenomenon. I went to a talk which was given by a bank a couple of weeks ago and they said that the average household credit card debt is $5,000.

It's not only families. It's also countries that are in debt. Apparently, the US account deficit is going to reach 540 billion dollars by the end of the year.

Also, we have alcoholism, and we have addiction to drugs, and we shouldn't be surprised about this either, because it's just another way to actually bring something in from outside ourselves to make us OK. Also, of course, drugs and alcohol are consumer goods.

How do we dethrone the God of economism?

O.K. So we've looked at the attributes of this God of Economism, and really they don't sound particularly nice. So if we don't like it, what can we do about it?

We have talked at the Unitarians about how the nature of God is rather ineffable, so maybe we are trying to define something that is in fact indefinable. However, man has tried to do this over the centuries. It is said in the Bible that man is created in the image of God. I think it is rather that God has been created in the image of man. So if we are going to insist on creating man-made Gods, why don't we create one that's going to make us happy?

A God of well-being

Now, currently a society seems to be measured on the size of their gross national product and gross domestic product. We do, however, have other surveys which are based on the well being of the people who live in that country, which can also be measured. Now I want to ask you, what sort of society do you think we would live in if the main measure was not the gross domestic and national products but the well being of the citizens of that society?

So what I'm going to suggest is, why don't we create a God of well being?

Attributes of the God of well-being

Now, what attributes would this God of well being have? Here I'm going to take a leaf out of the book of Epicurus who was a very ancient philosopher. He said that for happiness we need friends, freedom, and an analysed life.

Now just to be contrary I'm actually going to adapt those a bit. So in the case of friends, I'm going to widen it to relationships, and an analysed life I'm going to call reflection because it's an easier term. Freedom I'm actually going to change to balance. Because in the sense that Epicurus meant it, which was actually financial independence, that's not going to be possible for a lot of us, but what may be possible is to balance the way that we work with the way that we do other things in our life, and to have more control over the way that we make money.

I'm also going to add a fourth category called "acceptance".

Acceptance

So, obviously, if this God is about acceptance, it is an antidote to the God of Economism ,who is judgmental. Now this God of Well being would be a God who practiced unconditional love for everybody, no matter whether you believed in her or not. You would not have to do anything or to be a certain way to receive this love. For as a follower of the God of Well being you would practice acceptance of yourself and acceptance of others no matter what their personal, professional or financial status. You would also practice acceptance of what you have, however little that might seem to be. Now Epicurus apparently got deliriously happy over having a piece of cheese with his simple meal of bread and olive oil. Perhaps we could take a lesson from this.

The reason I think that Buddhism is apparently the fastest growing religion in Australia today is because the doctrine of non-attachment to material things is such an antidote to our western consumer society.

Now, let us make a distinction here. To be happy with what you have does not mean that you don't pursue goals for your life. I think that Eckhart Tolle put it quite brilliantly in a Conscious Living article. He said "On the level of ordinary living there's nothing wrong with pursuing a future goal. The difference is that you are not seeking an enhanced sense of self through achieving those goals any more."

Relationships

O.K. Next attribute - relationships. The God of Well being, unlike the monopolistic God of Economism, recognises that relationships are an important part of life and places importance on them. She wants to have a relationship with us. And it is not necessarily one that is exclusive, because she understands that for us to have relationships with other spiritual doctrines and other gods could also be for our well being.

As followers of the God of Well being, we will have good relationships with others and also with ourselves. Because we have good relationships with others we will want to spend time with them. We won't necessarily be so focused on going out and buying the next most important gadget because we will be happy just to spend time with the people we know. As they say, "Talk is cheap." We will also have good relationships with a number of spiritual doctrines and other spiritual people of different persuasions. And we will work tirelessly to ensure that every living being on the planet is in a state of contentment, because we will know that whatever we do to others, we also do to ourselves. We will also not allow our lives to be taken over by working 80 hours a week for corporations.

Reflection

Reflection. The God of Well being will provide an antidote to the addictive God of Economism through reflection. She is a God who will reflect on who we are, and what is good for us, and she will want us to do the same. As followers of the God of Well being we will want to look inside ourselves because we will find her there.

If you agree with the ideology behind the “Conversations with God” books, that rests on the idea that God communicates through thought and through feelings. If we have this knowledge of the divine within, we will not need to be grasping for things without to make us happy. By reflecting on ourselves, we can understand who we are, and where we want to be. And in doing that, we can create a more meaningful life for ourselves that is dictated by inner forces rather than by market and external forces.

Balance

The last attribute, balance. Our God of Well being counters the expansionist tendency of the Economist God by reminding us of the importance of balance. She is a very centred, peaceful God. She knows how to balance work with play, time alone with time in relationships, health with spirituality and also giving and receiving.

So as followers of the God of Well being, we would be aware of when we need to receive, when we have enough, and therefore when we don't need more and when we are able to give. When we give to others, particularly of our time, we are going against the God of Economism who says that we should be spending our time producing and consuming.

Balance is also about knowing that in human activity, the environment and people need to be taken into account. We can become ethical consumers and avoid patronising those companies who do not take into account those environmental and human factors. Our God of Well being would also ask us to meditate, or to do whatever it is that is going to bring us back to centre, because when we are in that centred, balanced state we are more in contact with the divine and with our higher selves.

Conclusion

I started by proposing that Economism is obsession with money and work, and that Economism has become a God through our attention to it. As a God it has the attributes of being addictive, monopolistic, judgmental and expansionist. So, it has taken over the planet. It requires us to need things outside of ourselves to be happy. It takes over the whole of our lives, and it judges us by what we have in terms of our jobs and material possessions.

So to dethrone this God of Economism I suggested that we might create a God of Well being, and this God would decree that we practice acceptance, relationships, balance, and reflection. So we should live in a state of acceptance with what we have and who we are, put energy into our relationships, strive to be centred and also to have self knowledge.

Now the question I'm going to ask you is, which God are you following? Are you following the God of Economism, or the God of Well being?

With acknowledgement for ideas from:

Conscious Living, Issue 61 Spring 2002. Beyond Happiness Transformation Awaits – Eckhart Tolle interview, Steven Donoso. P13-16

Conversations with God : an uncommon dialogue Book 1 Neale Donald Walsch. Hodder and Stoughton, c1995.

Philosophy: A Guide To Happiness [video] presented by Alain de Botton. Episode 2; Epicurus on Happiness. Channel Four Television Corporation 2002.

Small Gods – A Discworld Novel. Terry Pratchett. Corgi; London 1993

Whole life economics : revaluing daily life Barbara Brandt. Philadelphia, Pa : New Society Publishers, c1995.