Author: Bishop Richard Randerson (page 1 of 9)

AA25 A Theology for Social Justice: Pope Leo XIII to Pope Leo XIV. Brian Easton

Originally published at: https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/catholic-theology-on-the-economy. Republished here with author’s permission.

Catholic Theology on the Economy

by Brian Easton 

While many of the world’s Christian religions seem preoccupied with personal issues that Jesus, their founder, barely touched upon, they must engage with economic issues too. 

Robert Prevost, chose the name Leo on becoming the 267th Bishop of Rome – the Pope – in homage to Leo XIII (in office 1878-1903) who issued the 1891 encyclical Rerum novarum (‘of revolutionary change’), or the Rights and Duties of Capital and Labour. A foundational text of modern Catholic social teaching it covered the relationships and mutual duties between labour and capital and between government and its citizens, arguing there needs to be some amelioration of ‘the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class.’ It reflects the Church coming to grips with modern industrial society. While it rejected unrestricted capitalism, it affirmed the right to private property; while rejecting Marxism (unrestricted socialism), it supported the rights of labour to form unions.

Its theses have been developed by three further encyclicals, the most recent of which was John Paul II’s 1991 Centesimus Annus: The Centenary of Rerum Novarum. (See my discussion on the encyclical here.) Its publication coincided with the enactment of the Employment Contracts Act, which New Zealand’s Catholic bishops had already rejected as inconsistent with their Church’s teachings. (An even greater irony was that all three key politicians promoting the act – Jim Bolger, Bill Birch and Ruth Richardson – had Catholic upbringings.)

In 1986, a few years before, the United States Catholic bishops published a pastoral letter Economic Justice for All. Its thinking almost certainly impacted on Centesimus Annus. It certainly impacted upon Robert Provost, then working in Peru and America, who became a bishop in 1989. 

It is a fascinating document for even a non-Catholic economist because it is grappling with issues central to how to organise an economy, applying the social teaching to a practical challenge. The letter was written at a time when the Reagan administration was implementing libertarian policies of laissez-faire capitalism, and it may be interpreted as a reaction to what was seen as hostility towards the Catholic Church’s teachings on social justice.

The letter was greatly influenced by American philosopher John Rawls, whose seminal Theory of Justice, has been described as the most important book on political philosophy written in the twentieth century. (Rawls contemplated becoming an Episcopalian priest. His analysis goes back to Immanuel Kant who goes back to Jesus’s ‘do to others …’)

The bishops say that they have not written ‘a blueprint for the economy. It does not embrace any particular theory of how the economy works, nor does it attempt to resolve the disputes between different schools of economic thought. Instead, the letter turns to Scripture and the social teachings of the Church. There, we discover what our economic life must serve, what standards it must meet.’

They set down those standards as:

(i) Every economic decision and institution must be judged in the light of whether it protects or undermines the dignity of the person.

(ii) Human dignity can be realised and protected only in a community.

(iii) All people have a right to participate in the economic life of society.

(iv) All members of society have a special obligation to the poor and vulnerable.

(v) Human rights are the minimum conditions for life in community. 

(vi) Society as a whole, acting through public and private institutions, has a moral responsibility to enhance human dignity and protect human rights.

The bishops go on, ‘In Catholic teaching, human rights include not only civil and political rights but also economic rights …. all people have a right to life, food, clothing, shelter, rest, medical care, education, and employment.’ 

Here are some quotations (in page order) when they apply these principles:

‘Sustaining a common culture and a common commitment to moral values is not easy in our world …. One of our chief hopes in writing this letter is to encourage and contribute to the development of the common ground.’ 

‘Social justice implies that persons have an obligation to be active and productive participants in the life of society and that society has a duty to enable them to participate in this way.’

‘The obligation to provide justice for all means that the poor have single most urgent claim on the conscience of the nation.’

‘The Church fully supports the right of workers to form unions … to secure their rights to fair wages and working conditions. … Unions may also legitimately resort to strikes where this is the only available means to justice owed to workers. … No one may deny the right to organise without attacking human dignity itself.’

‘The Catholic tradition has long defended the right to private ownership of productive property. … Support of private ownership does not mean that anyone has the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth. Private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute and unconditional right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use of what he does not need, when others lack necessities.’

‘The common good may sometimes demand that the right to own be limited by public involvement in the planning or ownership of certain sectors of the economy.’

‘The Church’s teaching opposes collectivist and statist economic approaches. But it also rejects the notion that a free market automatically produces justice.’

‘Full employment is the foundation of the just society. … We believe that 6 to 7 percent unemployment is neither inevitable nor acceptable. While a zero unemployment rate is clearly impossible in an economy where people are constantly entering the job market and others are changing jobs, appropriate policies and concerted private and public action can improve the situation considerably, if we have the will to do so. No economy can be considered truly healthy when so many … people are denied jobs by forces outside their control. The acceptance of present unemployment rates would have been unthinkable twenty years ago. It should be regarded as intolerable today.’

‘We find the disparities of income and wealth in the United States to be unacceptable. Justice requires that all members of our society work for economic, political, and social reforms that will decrease these inequalities.’

In summary, those who describe the Catholic social teaching that Robert Prevost espoused as Marxist are demonstrating their intellectual limitations. 

I leave readers – and time – to judge to what extent Leo XIV promotes such sentiments but draw attention to a couple of issues which are yet to be addressed: 

The bishops are largely writing about the US. How to apply their approach – and that of the encyclicals – to the whole world? (Recall Robert Prevost’s time in Peru.)

The bishops are largely writing about the present. How to apply their approach – and that of the encyclicals – to intergenerational equity and sustainability? (Appointed at the age of 69, Robert Prevost is likely to be in office in the 2040s.)

One hopes Leo XIV will have some responses.

Note: For my 1989 critique of Economic Justice for All – this column is an exposition – see here.

MF22 POST EASTER REFLECTION, redemptive suffering, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and life after death

Christ is risen!

St Peter’s Wellington, 27 April 2025

Bishop Richard Randerson richardrandersonnz [at] gmail.com
Website: www.awordforallseasons.co.nz

Today, three Resurrection themes:

  1. What the Resurrection means
  2. Redemptive suffering – Dietrich Bonhoeffer
  3. Life after death

1. Resurrection: An article in The Post last week on Lloyd Geering highlighted his heresy trial by the Presbyterians for an article he wrote in 1966 entitled What does the Resurrection mean, a trial in which he was acquitted. What disturbed many was his quoting of a statement by English theologian R. Grigor Smith that Jesus’ bones might lie somewhere in Palestine. I agree with them both the reality of the Resurrection does not depend on any theory about Jesus’ bones. (Luke 24.5: why do you look for the living among the dead?) Lloyd Geering today is 107 and has done much to unpack the meaning and depth of the scriptures, although I differ from him in some aspects of his theology.

The reality of the Resurrection is seen in the changed lives of the disciples when they encountered the risen Christ. In today’s Gospel, Jesus appears to the disciples and later to Thomas (John 20.19-31). They were overjoyed and Thomas said, “My Lord and my God”.

And then in Luke 24.13-35 there is the moving story of how Clopas and a friend encountered a stranger on the road to Emmaus who became known to them in the breaking of the bread. They reported that their “hearts had burned within them”. In John 21.1-14 there is the account of the disciples fishing and noticing a figure on the beach lighting a BBQ fire. It was John who said: “it is the Lord” and they all went ashore and broke bread together.

In all these (and other) encounters we note two things: there is a mystery about the nature of Jesus’ risen body: it appears and disappears; it is not immediately recognised; it can eat bread. But the key thing is the transformation of the disciples. From grief and desolation they become followers filled with confidence and joy who go out to proclaim
the risen Christ.

John 20.31: “   But these (accounts) are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name”. Now all of that was 2000 years ago, but the Church was formed arising out of the experience of the disciples. And we know it is true today also because of our experience of the risen Christ in our own lives. Jesus is our constant companion in joy and sorrow offering new life and hope.

2. Redemptive suffering is also part of the resurrection story. You may have seen the recent film on Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German theologian who studied in New York in 1930. Returning to Germany he was outspoken against the Nazi regime while the Church was silent. He said that “silence in the face of evil is evil. Not to speak is to speak; not to act is to act.” He was executed in 1945, aged 39, for a plot to assassinate Hitler, just days before end of WW2.


Fellow pastor Martin Niemoller said: “When they came for the socialists I said nothing because I was not a socialist. When they came for the trade unionists I said nothing because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the Jews I said nothing because I was not a Jew. And when they came for me there was no one to speak up for me.”


Suffering at the hand of evil is redemptive. The centurion at the foot of the Cross, a hardened Roman soldier, when he saw Jesus die said: “Truly this man was the son of God (Matthew 27.54). And Tertullian, around 200 CE said “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church”.

3. Life after death: as we think about life after death we remember today family members and friends who have gone before us in life and faith. We remember also at this Anzactide those who have laid down their lives in war and we pray for peace in our time. We also remember His Holiness Pope Francis whose faith led him into a leadership that changed the world. May they rest in peace and rise in glory.

There are many images (eg in the book of Revelation and parts of the gospels) about the day of judgment, heaven and hell. It is known as apocalyptic imagery and requires its own interpretation . But I have always been helped by the words of American theologian Henry Nelson Wieman who wrote of life after death as “hope without prediction.” We cannot predict the details of what lies beyond death, but we have hope in the full Christian sense of confidence that in life and in death we are with God.

As Jesus died on the Cross he said: Into your hands, O Lord, I commend my Spirit. I use them every night before sleeping. They are words of trust and confidence that God is with us in life and in death and beyond death, words we can use daily and finally.

Christ is risen. He is risen indeed!

GS14 Turning the Other Cheek – The Gospel and Les Miserables

Turning the other cheek     The Gospel and Les Miserables

Victor Hugo’s great novel Les  Misérables is employed to throw light on the ideal and complexity of Jesus’ extraordinary saying about turning the other cheek.

Sermon by the Rev’d Charles Waldegrave at St Peter’s, Wellington
23    February 2025                                                     

___________________

That was a pretty tough Gospel we had this morning. “If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also.” (Luke 6. 29). Let’s up-date this message a bit. That’s like saying, If someone scams your current account, give them your savings account as well.” Oooh ouch, that hurts just thinking bout it. Is that what Jesus meant? Is this for real?

It is also like saying to Ukrainian people, Russia has taken Crimea and much of the Donbas region, offer them Kiev as well. Earlier, he had said, “love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” (Luke 6. 27-28) How does that go down in Ukraine?  Is this fair? Is it sensible? He also said, “If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.”  

Well, had Jesus lost the plot here, or was the message deeper and more complex than a cursory or quick reading might imply? Was he being literal, or was he exaggerating, using hyperbole to make a point? Was he trying to point to another way of looking at relationships and how we treat each other. All of these things have been debated since he first said these words.

Jesus wasn’t a literalist. He often spoke in parables. These were stories, narratives if you like, that captured people’s interest and expressed a point he was trying to get across without him saying it directly. 

After agreeing with a lawyer, for example, that the essence of faith is about loving God and loving your neighbour as yourself, he told the story of the Good Samaritan. At that time most Jews hated Samaritans and most Samaritans hated Jews. There were many reasons for this which I don’t have time to go into here. It is suffice to say events by both peoples took place that deeply upset the others. Jews upset Samaritans and Samaritans upset Jews. 

On that occasion, Jesus didn’t tell people directly that they needed to be more forgiving of each other. He simply told the parable of the Good Samaritan where the person who was kind to the man attacked by thieves was a Samaritan, and he helped a Jew despite the distrust and hatred between the two peoples. By contrast, their religious leaders walked past the man and left him suffering. People would have been astounded that he was actually implying in the story that a despised Samaritan was closer to God than their own religious leaders because he showed both love and mercy. He loved his enemy! He turned his other cheek!

The French novelist Victor Hugo told a wonderful story about love, forgiveness, mercy and justice in one of the greatest novels of the nineteenth century, and probably of all time in his book Les Miserable. Like Dickens in England, at much the same time, he wanted to show how unfair and unjust French society was to the lower classes where most people lived. How the structures in that society constantly turned good and innocent people into beggars and criminals in a way that ruined their lives. He particularly wanted to see reforms in education, criminal justice, and the treatment of women. 

As with Jesus, Hugo didn’t usually tell people what he considered was needed directly. He told wonderful stories that left people to think of the implications.  Les Miserable has so captured people’s imagination, that it has been adapted to film, television, the stage, and of course the famous musical. There have been multiple adaptions of these various media. I have only time to tell parts of the story.

It begins with Jean Valjean who had just served nineteen years on a chain gang in a local prison in France. He had been sentenced to 5-years for stealing bread for his starving sister and her family, and then received 14 more years for numerous attempted escapes. Since his release, he had been constantly turned away by innkeepers because he had to carry a yellow passport that states he was a former convict. He sleeps on the street, and is angry and bitter.

The local Bishop of Digne gives Jean shelter in his house when no one else will. However, at night he steals some of the silverware and runs off. The police later capture him with the silverware. He lies and says they were a gift from the Bishop. The police take him to the Bishop to check his story, and the Bishop pretends he had given the silverware in order to protect Jean. The police accept the story. The Bishop then lets him keep the silverware and gives him two silver candlesticks in addition, suggesting he had forgotten to take them. Jean Valjean realises he has been given a chance to regain his soul. The Bishop says he should use money from the silver candlesticks to make an honest man of himself. He decides to start a new life. He changes his identity, breaks parole, and rips up the yellow card.

To cut a long story with many sub-plots short, 8 years later Jean is a factory owner and mayor of a small town. One of the workers in the factory is a woman named Fantine. She has a secret illegitimate child named Cosette living with a nasty innkeeper and his family in another town. Her secret is then discovered by the other women in the factory and they demand she be dismissed. The foreman, whose advances she had earlier rejected, fires her. 

She has no income and needs to pay for medicine for her sick daughter. She sells a locket, then all her hair, and eventually becomes a prostitute. Her new profession disgusts her and when she refuses a prospective customer, he claims she attacked him. She was about to be sent to prison as a result of this accusation, when the Mayor Jean Valjean steps in and insists she be sent to hospital instead. He recognised her from when she worked in his factory and promises to help her. But Fantine is dying, so Jean promises to take care of Cosette.

Cosette by this time had lived with the innkeeper’s family for 5 years and had been treated very badly. Jean pays them off and takes Cosette away. He looks after her really well but doesn’t tell her about his past. 9-years later they are in Paris and Cosette and a student Marius have fallen in love. Marius is involved in a just student uprising against the Authorities. After various battles, most of the students are killed. However, Marius survives because Jean Valjean saves him, although he was too wounded to know. The lovers then marry and through a series of events they both learn about Jean’s past and all the ways he has cared for them and Cosette’s mother. Jean then dies peacefully and is joined by the spirit of Fantine and those who had passed in the student uprising.

I have shared parts of this novel because they help us understand the style of Jesus’ teaching in our gospel today. As Jesus spoke in parables, Victor Hugo spoke in novels and poetry. 

When the Bishop of Digne had his silverware stolen, he offered the silver candlesticks as well. Let me repeat that because it parallels the Gospel call. When the Bishop of Digne had his silverware stolen, he offered the silver candlesticks as well. 

The action changed a man’s life because he experienced mercy and forgiveness. Having found a place in society where he was accepted, he then showed mercy himself, when he promised Fantine when she was dying, that he would look after and protect Cosette. He did so, and she in turn was able to escape poverty, gain an education and live a secure life. 

Had the Bishop confirmed the theft of the silverware, an angry man who had already been badly betrayed by society, would have been returned to prison. In that story, Fantine would have died with a broken heart for her daughter and a sense of betrayal by all those around her. Cosette would have been condemned to poverty and maltreatment with little hope of any upward social mobility. 

When Jesus said, “If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also” and “If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them.”  I am quite sure he wasn’t speaking literally about every time we are struck or someone steals our possessions. I think he was saying something like, don’t move quickly to simply defend yourself and punish the person. We need to try and understand what is going on for them and address that. We should de-centre ourselves and our own wishes. If someone stoops as low as common assault, they obviously have problems. Payback and revenge can extend the conflict. Imprisonment often turns into a school for crime and future criminal activities. These are not always constructive ways to address the problem.

This is not to say, there is no place for prisons, nor that we should allow assault and theft. Jesus lived in a society much more like Victor Hugo’s, than ours today, where poorer people could be judged and imprisoned very quickly and very unfairly. The stories of some of the petty crimes, convicts were sent to Australia for, also come to mind.  There was no opportunity for redress. 

Although Jesus told us to love our enemies, he also said in a different context, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.” If he considered something was unjust, he too could be quite prescriptive, and withering.

There isn’t a correct answer for understanding these difficult passages. They simply lift us to an ideal which we should chew on as Victor Hugo did so brilliantly. The context will always be important, as will be the life of the person who slaps us or steals from us. Somehow, we have to get beyond ourselves and our possessions and look for the greatest common good. Generosity, love and mercy reflect the character of God. That’s a great place to start when weighing these matters.

MF21 Theology of the Cross – Did Jesus Die for Us?

Did Jesus Die For Us?
Bishop Richard Randerson

A rather gloomy looking person once said to a stranger : “No, I’m not a Christian : it’s my ulcer that makes me look like this”. The story conveys what many often think of the Church and its teachings – a heavy emphasis on sin, evil, punishment, the hopelessness of the human condition, and a helpless dependence on God for salvation and the avoidance of hell.

Indeed two of our readings this morning make reference to the blotting out or taking away of sins. All in all it adds up to a pretty bleak and depressing view of the Christian faith, and one which I believe is the total opposite of the joyous, generous and celebratory life of Christians and the Church.

There are several problems with the “Jesus dies to save me from my sins” approach :

  1. It conveys a very negative view of life and people. Human beings are seen as hopeless and chronic sinners, always operating on the negative side of the ledger, and never on the positive. The most we can expect is for God to bring us back to a neutral position week by week, from whence we sink again into the dark swamp of sin. Many people have felt
    this to be a destructive recipe for living, psychologically crippling, and one to be avoided for the sake of their mental health.
  2. It conveys a totally wrong view of the nature of a loving God. Does a God of love require that someone be punished for our sins? Parents want the best for their children but don’t see punishment and retribution as the way to achieve it. They take wrongdoing seriously, but want to find positive ways to attract children into those ways. A concept of positive
    attraction is far preferable to punishment, and in line with the deepest concepts of love, both divine and human.
  3. Even within the context of punishment is it just for one person to suffer for the sins of all? The concept of Jesus being punished for the sins of the whole world fails to meet the criteria of both justice and love.
  4. The concept is also contrary to the whole nature of Jesus’ life – a life of generous love, breaking the strait-jackets of religious and social conventions, offering freedom and hope to the down-trodden, and new life and opportunities to rich and poor alike.

In Jesus’ time the concept of animal sacrifice was well-established, and images of scapegoats, or Jesus as the “paschal Lamb who was sacrificed for us”, were obvious ones whereby to talk of Jesus being sacrificed so we might be saved. But the concept of animal sacrifice died away and, while we may recognise the historical context of that concept, it is one we must abandon
if we are to convey the fullness of God’s love to 21st century people for whom animal sacrifice conveys the very opposite of a Gospel of justice and love.

I believe we need a new understanding of Jesus’ death, and I see it in the response of the centurion in Matthew 27.54. Here was a totally disinterested bystander, a senior Roman soldier on duty at the cross, someone who probably resented being posted to a backwater of the Roman Empire and charged with overseeing the affairs of people he despised.

Somehow the dynamics leading to Jesus’ crucifixion broke through his shell so that, watching Jesus die, he was led to make the astonishing affirmation : “Truly this man was a son ofGod”. What would have led him to this? Did he feel burdened with sin and recognise that Jesus’ death now took that burden away? Unlikely, I would think.

More likely that from all he observed he saw the possibly of new life, a life lived as Jesus lived, with three key features :

  1. The centurion would have noted Jesus’ complete self-giving love in the service of others, his care for the outcast and the poor, the rejected and the needy, and his eschewing of power and privilege. Here on the cross the full extent of that love was to be seen. Jesus’ love led him to challenge the social and religious norms of his day, upsetting the
    established leaders, who for their own security chose to put this nuisance to death.
  2. The centurion would also have noted Jesus’ integrity and his commitment to do and speak the truth, whatever the cost might be. Even in the face of death, Jesus did not draw back from his mission.
  3. The centurion would also have noted Jesus’ central relationship with God. It could hardly be said that Jesus used God as a crutch in times of weakness. His whole life was sourced in the living power of God on which he drew regularly through prayer and periods of solitude. With God as the source of Jesus’ life and love, he was enabled to be the
    powerful force that transformed the lives of so many he came in touch with.

It seems to me, then, that the centurion was saved not because he felt delivered from punishment for sin through Jesus’ death, but because Jesus’ life was the door to a new existence, new possibilities, new hope and meaning that offered a fulfilment way beyond the hum-drum experience of living out his life in the daily service of the Roman Empire.

And just as that centurion was able to acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God in his day, so the same dynamics of self-giving love, integrity in our calling, and a daily walk with God attract us today. We too are called to acknowledge Jesus as Son of God and so find salvation, which is another word for wholeness.

The theological ground-shift is seen also in the New Zealand Prayer Book which differs from the Book of Common Prayer not merely by its use of contemporary language, but also by reflecting a theology of life, growth and celebration rather than salvation from sin.

The theologian Hans Kung has said that the event of Jesus Christ is a historical fact with universal significance. All are affected and called by it, in every generation. Hans Kung sums up the meaning of the Cross in these words :

“Nowhere did it become more evident than in the cross that this God is in fact a God on the side of the weak, sick, poor, underprivileged, oppressed, even of the irreligious, immoral and ungodly. …He is a God who lavishes his grace on those who do not deserve it. Who gives without envy and never disappoints. Who does not demand love, but gives it : who himself is
holy love. It follows from all of this that the cross is not to be understood as a sacrifice demanded by a cruel God. In the light of Easter it was understood as quite the reverse, as the deepest expression of his love. Love, by which God …can be defined : love not as feeling, but as “existing for”, “doing good to others”. (On Being a Christian, p 485).

MF20 The Lenten Fast (Pope Francis)

The Lenten Fast…

(in the words of Pope Francis)

  • Fast from hurting words, say kind words.
  • Fast from sadness, and be filled with gratitude.
  • Fast from anger, be filled with patience.
  • Fast from pessimism, and be filled with hope.
  • Fast from worries, and have trust in God.
  • Fast from complaints, and contemplate simplicity.
  • Fast from pressures, and be prayerful.
  • Fast from bitterness, and be compassionate to others.
  • Fast from grudges, and be reconciled.
  • Fast from words, and be silent so you can listen.

GS13 The Prodigal Son

The Prodigal Son Luke 15.11-32
Sermon at St Peter’s Wellington, 30.3.25
Bishop Richard Randerson
richardrandersonnz [at] gmail.com

Best known of Jesus’ parables? Known as the prodigal son, also the lost son and the waiting father.
Three characters – father, elder and younger brothers (But think more
inclusively of parents and siblings).

KEY QUESTION: With whom do we
identify?

Prodigal Son– lavish, wild spending. wine, women and song. Deserted by friends.

Do we identify with him, past or present??

Lost son – types of “lost”

  • Wild and profligate living
  • Illness, grief, bereavement
  • Unemployed, homeless, poor
  • Being lost to family member or friend
  • Lost our way, purpose in living
  • For me — as curate vocational crisis

Most of us could identify with some loss, past or present.

The Waiting Father (or mother)

  • Grief-stricken, but always hoping
  • Dashes out to meet his boy
  • Waves aside the apology
  • Lavish clothing, ring, shoes, party

Do we identify with the father?

  • Yes, we can remember when God’s love embraced us. Brought us home when we were lost.
  • Yes, we can aspire to be equally lavish with love and generosity to those who are lost. (But how far does it go?)

The elder brother (or sister)

  • Would not join the party
  • Remrandt painting – son in background. (see online)
  • V30-brother to father –“your son”.
    • father to son – “your brother”.
  • St Peter’s study group- most identified with older brother
  • Worked hard, achieving, no rewards.
  • Not realising richness of what we have
  • Translate this into national politics and see why we have entrenched poverty. “We worked hard, so should they”.

We can identify with all three characters

  • We all know lostness
  • We can all know the bitterness of missing out
  • We can all know the fullness of God’s love and share it with
    others.

Rewards? = Parties good but ultimately

31  “‘My son,’ the father said, ‘you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. 


Bishop John BLuck’s New BOok

Living on the Fault Line – Aotearoa’s bicultural future,Quentin Wilson Publishing, February 2025. The book picks up the themes of his 2022 book Becoming Pākehā, but set in the new context created by the Treaty Principles Bill, and exploring how we might become a more effective and informed partner in that debate. It also offers a deeper look at the richness of our Pākehā cultural and religious history that John first covered in a RNZ series several years ago. Available at a special prepublication price of $25 plus postage, when ordered from johnbluck22 [at] gmail.com.