More on tackling poverty

Recently I read an article by TAP: Taxpayers Against Poverty.  Below is the foreword to its publication: The Nicolson Report: The Poverty Scandal (16.02.2026): 

Foreword

This report is written in the shadow — and the spirit — of late Rev Paul Nicolson*, the founder of Taxpayers Against Poverty.

Paul spent his life insisting on a simple, uncomfortable truth: that poverty in a wealthy country is not inevitable, and that allowing it to persist is a moral failure and an economic folly. He believed that public policy should be judged not by rhetoric or intent, but by its impact on the lives of the poorest. That conviction runs through every page of this report.

The Nicolson Report: The Poverty Scandal sets out the reality the UK now faces. Millions of people are living with unnecessary financial hardship. Families are pushed into insecurity not because resources are lacking, but because choices have been made — repeatedly — to tolerate a system that over-taxes work, under-taxes wealth, and under-invests in the public services and infrastructure that make prosperity possible.

This report is not about blame. It is about responsibility — and about evidence. Poverty benefits no one. It damages health, weakens productivity, increases pressure on public services and limits opportunity for the next generation. We all pay the price.

But the message of this report is also one of hope. Poverty is not inevitable. With a fairer and more modern tax system, and with sustained investment in education, health, social care and infrastructure, hardship can be reduced and prosperity shared more widely. Wealth in this country has been built on shared foundations. Those foundations now need renewing.

This report calls for bold and determined leadership — grounded in evidence, focused on outcomes, and willing to challenge comfortable assumptions. Ending the poverty scandal is not an act of charity. It is one of the most important economic choices the UK can make.

To readers of this report — policymakers, campaigners, taxpayers and citizens — the call to action is simple: do not accept poverty as inevitable. Question policies that deepen hardship. Demand fairness in how we raise and use public money. Support solutions that prevent poverty rather than manage its consequences.

Paul Nicolson believed that change begins when people refuse to look away.

This report asks you to do the same.

Tom Burgess

CEO, Taxpayers Against Poverty

I commend the report for your attention and note that many of the points it makes are ones discussed at length in this blog.   Taken with the huge amount of information in the reports published by The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the anti-poverty campaign of The Big Issue led by John Bird (co-founder with Gordon Roddick) there is a solid body of evidence and a determination to progress campaigning to make systemic change to the policies that cause and sustain poverty.  

Sadly we live in a society that, to echo the words of John Kenneth Galbraith, has the means but lacks the will to tackle poverty issues.  It is a matter of political choice.  As a follower of the teaching attributed to Jesus I am of the opinion that campaigning against the underlying causes of poverty should be an imperative for churches.  Policy makers must be challenged in robust terms. We need to go beyond providing palliatives and mitigation to the plight of those in poverty or destitution.  We should demand radical change.  Shades of Jurgen Moltmann and Gustavo Gutierrez!

*  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/30/the-rev-paul-nicolson-a-campaigning-life-in-letters

*  https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/10/the-rev-paul-nicolson-obituary

 

Handling nastiness

Unsurprisingly I receive many hostile, rude, vitriolic comments on some of my posts. Par for the course I suppose for anyone prepared to stand up and be counted on issues of inclusion.

Apart from this blog I am active on Facebook. I manage two groups:

*Theology and social justice

*Social Justice.

I have a Facebook page entitled: Radical, Liberal, Progressive and Deconstructivist Theology

One comment I receive often is that I am an 'armchair warrior'. Well, I am not anonymous and at my age there are physical limitations on activity.  

Over many years I was active in the voluntary sector: as a volunteer, consultant or employee. I won't bore you, or attempt to preen, by listing my activities, but I will quote this e-mail sent to me by Mr Roy Bullock, a former Leader of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council:

'Your announcement was greeted with absolute silence. Can I for one mourn your severing of all the links to the Voluntary sector. I have known you for a long time and you were always involved in one or another charity, or Community Interest Company. Whatever wheeze successive Governments came up with to try and transfer more functions from government to the voluntary sector, you were always there trying to milk as much funding as possible from the government to better the organisation you supported. John to me you are the best example of being a localist I have ever known and you will be missed. Well done though good and faithful servant of the people.'

Here we go...again. More anti-poverty campaigns

A major thread running through the Old and New Testaments is the call for relief of poverty.  Help individuals at point of need and seek systemic change to eradicate, or at least diminish, poverty.

The command to love your neighbour extends beyond poverty issues, to seeking to alleviate the symptoms and the causes of all forms of discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation.  The aspiration is to achieve social justice: equity, equality and fairness, all subjective concepts.   These concepts are writ large in political philosophy, theology, sociology and eonomic theory and should not be considered in distinct individual silos, but explored for interactions, symbiosis, fault lines, harmony and concordance.  Often they are in conflict, particularly in the realm of the relationship between faith and political organisations.

This blog often has highlighted the failure of government to tackle the issues of poverty, destitution and issues in areas of multiple deprivation in any concerted, long-lasting, properly funded fashion.  Instead there has been a diet of short-termism, underfunding and party political disputation.  Initiatives come and go with no lasting benefit to show.

The voluntary sector (including faith groups) has proved adept at providing support to individuals at point of need.  The sector is coming under severe pressure as rising costs and reducing income from donations and contracts for services combine to place many organisations in a state of severe financial strain.  At the same time demand or need for services is increasing.

There is a raft of services provided by the voluntary sector to allievate poverty and destitution: foodbanks, clothes banks, debt advice, warm spaces, lunch clubs and so forth.  All excellent and laudable provision but they do not solve the issues, simply make life more bearable for those able to access them. They are palliatives.  Government is quite happy to let this work continue, it takes the pressure off politicians seriously and determinably to address and eradicate the root causes of the problems.  The voluntary sector is not going to eradicate poverty.  It requires systemic change, legislation, taxpayer funding and long-term commitment to achieve results.  Of course the voluntary sector may have a role to play in commenting on and delivering initiatives.  It cannot initiate change but it can campaign for change.

It is a source of shame that food, warmth and shelter — the basics of life — are now routinely being provided by churches and voluntary organisations. That should never have become normal. It represents a profound failure of the state.

Where I think the tension sits is here: the institutional church itself has become part of the stabilising machinery of government. It is protected, sanctioned, and relied upon precisely because it absorbs social strain without fundamentally challenging the system that produces it. That protection comes with limits.  Peter Hobbs

The same is true of the voluntary sector as a whole and not just faith groups.  I view with a high degree of cynicsm the creation by the government of the Civil Society Council. The government press release (for full version see blog post : On politics and theology. Part 10) states:

Leading voices from across the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector have been...appointed to the new Civil Society Council established by the Prime Minister to bring civil society into the heart of government decision-making.  

It is window dressing, an attempt to co-opt the voluntary sector into supporting government policies.  The real power and decision making remains with government.  The parameters of policy and implementation remain with government.  The voluntary sector should not have allowed itself to be sucked into a minor role in the machinery of government.  A place close to the top table, but toothless.

In my opinion significant progress in achieving social justice will only be achieved by grassroots organisations putting upward pressure on institutions and government.  Learn the lessons of liberation, black and feminist theologies.  Attack systemic injustice from below.

Currently I am aware of three important initiatives:

* The Together March, 28th March, London: For Love, For Hope, For Unity, Together.  Organised by the Together Alliance.  I have signed up through the Progressive Christian Network.

* The Big Issue anti-poverty campaign

* Taxpayers against Poverty Campaign: Prioritise Poverty Prevention 

Poverty remains a persistent problem in the UK, affecting millions of households who struggle to afford basic necessities such as food, housing, and energy. Recent data shows that a significant proportion of people live below the poverty line, with rising living costs and insecure work pushing more families into financial hardship. 

Addressing poverty effectively requires a shift in public policy from reacting to crises to preventing them in the first place. Evidence consistently shows that measures such as ensuring adequate incomes, fair wages, affordable housing, and accessible social security can reduce poverty rates and prevent long-term social and economic costs.

In response to this challenge, Taxpayers Against Poverty has launched a campaign calling on politicians to place poverty prevention at the centre of public policy following the publication of the Nicolson Report. The Nicolson Report, named after the late Rev. Paul Nicolson, outlines the economic and social case for a prevention-focused approach. 

The campaign, 'Prioritise Poverty Prevention', urges policymakers to move beyond simply managing the consequences of poverty and instead adopt data-driven strategies that stop hardship before it occurs. We aim to build cross-party support in Parliament and wider public backing for policies that address the root causes of poverty and inequality across the UK.

Read about our campaign launch:

https://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk/post/britain-must-prevent-poverty-not-just-manage-it-says-new-campaign

Pressure for change has to come from the grassroots.  It is not simply a case of providing evidence as in the Nicolson Report and the numerous reports published by The Joseph Rowntree Foundation.  There has to be movement, a dynamic for change, to achieve major systemic change to achieve social justice.  Faith groups should be in the front line organising, demanding change, campaigning to influence those with the power to effect change.

Walter Brueggemann on prophetic ministry: commentary by 'Royce'

⁰ Excellent exposition. Recommended.  

Becoming the People Who See Differently

“The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.”

—Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination

Brueggemann names what so many of us feel but struggle to articulate: the dominant culture forms us into ways of seeing that keep us stuck. And every generation has people who help us see differently—Bryan Stevenson in the courts, William Barber in the streets, Barbara Brown Taylor in the pulpit, Cole Arthur Riley in the quiet rooms where dignity is remembered. They’re the ones who refuse to let us settle for the story the culture hands us.

But most of us don’t meet these moments with that kind of clarity. We slip into the roles we’ve been taught to play. Sometimes we try to be the hero, carrying more than any one person can hold. Sometimes we become the villain, lashing out when we’re afraid or overwhelmed. Sometimes we feel like the victim, convinced we’re powerless in the face of everything unraveling around us. These roles are deeply human, but they keep us circling the same old patterns. They drain us without transforming anything.

The invitation of Jesus is not to shame these roles but to let them be transformed. The hero doesn’t disappear; they become a teacher—someone who empowers others instead of trying to save the world alone. The villain doesn’t get written off; they become a prophet—someone who tells the truth without contempt, someone whose courage is rooted in love rather than fear. And the victim isn’t left behind; they become a Christ‑bearer—someone who carries hope into places still marked by loss, someone who knows resurrection from the inside out.

And this, I think, is what Brueggemann means when he says the task of prophetic ministry is to “nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the dominant culture.” Each of these transformed roles becomes a vocation in that work. When we take up the calling of the teacher, we nurture a different way of seeing—forming courage, compassion, and clarity in one another. When we grow into the prophet, we nourish truth in a world addicted to illusion—speaking with a love that refuses to dehumanize. And when we live as Christ‑bearers, we evoke a consciousness shaped by resurrection—carrying hope into places still marked by loss. These are not abstract ideals; they are the shared work of becoming a people who can midwife restoration.

The invitation before us is to take up these vocations together—teachers, prophets, and Christ‑bearers—so that restoration becomes something we participate in, not just something we long for.

Royce

About Royce:

Operating primarily on Facebook and Instagram, Royce uses the handle @notthatkindofchristian to advocate for a version of faith centered on unconditional love, social justice, and inclusion. 

Key Characteristics of Royce’s Platform

• Mission: Royce describes the platform's foundation as love and explicitly states full support for LGBTQ+ siblings and civil rights.
• Theological Stance: He often critiques what he calls "theological corruption" or "Manly Christianity," instead calling for a return to Jesus’ original message of liberation and radical love.
• Advocacy: Royce frequently speaks out against Christian nationalism and the "weaponization of faith" for political power.
• Content Format: He shares daily insights, parables, and probing questions designed to move away from treating the Bible as an "infallible rulebook" and toward a more nuanced, discerning understanding of the Gospel. 

On politics and theology. Part 10: Another 'initiative'

 The latest foray by politicians into engaging the voluntary sector (including faith based organisations) in delivering policies to tackle "the country's most complex social challenges".

Really! All appointed by government, meeting four times a year.  Wow, it will meet at Downing Street.

It strikes me as being a complete waste of time.  Window dressing and ego massaging.  If government is serious about working with and supporting the voluntary sector it should be doing far more to relieve the financial pressures on the sector.  Voluntary organisations are closing as a consequence of cost rises (particularly employment costs) and falling income. 

The press release (in full) is below. Public relations tosh.

New civil society council established to put partnership at the heart of government

Leading voices from across the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector have today been appointed to the new Civil Society Council, established by the Prime Minister to bring civil society into the heart of government decision‑making.

From:

Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street and The Rt Hon Sir Keir Starmer KCB KC MP

Published

10 March 2026

• Civil society working in partnership with government at the highest level to drive implementation of the Covenant 
• Better policy delivery across government through closer partnership on issues that cut across departments, from social cohesion to public services 
• Council to provide an open and representative voice for civil society at the centre of government 

Leading voices from across the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector have today been appointed to the new Civil Society Council, established by the Prime Minister to bring civil society into the heart of government decision‑making. 

The Council will drive a new approach to partnership with civil society, overseeing implementation of the Civil Society Covenant at national and local level, and builds on last summer’s Civil Society Summit and the launch of the Office for the Impact Economy. 

Together, these steps mark a renewed commitment to working with charities, social enterprises and community groups as core partners in tackling the country’s most complex social challenges. 

The Civil Society Council will provide a central forum to address issues that cut across government, including social cohesion and public service commissioning, and to identify opportunities for civil society to play a greater role in the design and delivery of policies and services. 

The Council will be chaired by Kate Lee OBE, Chief Executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO), and will bring together senior leaders from charities, social enterprises, philanthropy, faith and community organisations, and the youth sector. It will meet quarterly in Downing Street and be supported by a dedicated team in No10, maximising the opportunities for civil society to contribute across government. 

Council members were appointed following an open and competitive Expressions of Interest process which received nearly 600 applications. Final members were selected to reflect a broad mix of experience, expertise and geographic representation. 

The Council will hold its inaugural meeting next month. 

A full list of Council members is set out below: 

• Kate Lee OBE (Chair) - CEO of NCVO 
• Matt Hyde OBE – CEO of Lloyds Bank Foundation 
• Gemma Peters – CEO of Macmillan Cancer Support 
• Dame Clare Moriarty – CEO of Citizens Advice 
• Mark Russell OBE – CEO of The Children’s Society 
• Emma de Closset – CEO of UK Community Foundations 
• Charlotte Hill OBE – CEO of The Felix Project & FareShare 
• Bishop Rob Wickham - CEO of the Church Urban Fund 
• Dr Tessy Ojo CBE – CEO of The Diana Award 
• Maddy Desforges OBE – CEO of NAVCA 
• Saeed Atcha MBE DL – CEO of Youth Leads UK 
• Innes Morgan – Director and Founder of Act with Purpose   
• Dr Lindsay Cordery-Bruce – CEO of WCVA

On politics and theology. Part 9: Jesus was political, so should be his followers.

What is your understanding of the Bible?  Is it the inerrant word of  God to be applied literally or is your thinking along the lines of the quotations below?

The Christian story does not drop from heaven fully written. It grew and developed over a period of forty-two to seventy years. This is not what most Christians have been taught to think, but it is factual. Christianity has always been an evolving story. It was never, even in the New Testament, a finished story. JOHN SHELBY SPONG 

I let go of the notion that the Bible is a divine product. I learned that it is a human cultural product, the product of two ancient communities, biblical Israel and early Christianity. As such, it contained their understandings and affirmations, statements not coming directly or somewhat directly from God.....I realised that whatever "divine revelation" and the "inspiration of the Bible" meant (if they meant anything), they did not mean that the Bible was a divine product with divine authority. MARCUS J BORG 

Properly understood the Bible is a potential ally to the progressive Christian passion for transformation of ourselves and the world. It is our great heritage. Along with Jesus, to whom it is subordinate, it is our greatest treasure .MARCUS J BORG

My blog readers understand that I consider my theological opinions to be a mixture, mozaic, melange of liberal, progressive, deconstructive, liberation, postmodern and radical ideas.  My approach is a questioning one:  what is the role of scripture, is it stuck in a dead end or is it evolving and relevant in today's society?  Is it a museum exhibit or a dynamic source for good? 

The concepts attributed to Jesus by the authors of the synoptic gospels draw on a rich vein of social concern to be discerned in Jewish scripture appropriated to Christianity as the Old Testament.  It is concern for the poor, the marginalised, the discriminated against, the excluded.  It is a call not only to help at point of need but also to change societal structures to overcome the issues.  The teaching of Jesus is not a manual for applying a set of rules: it is a collection of broad principles capable of evolving and developing to meet the challenges of today's society.

To challenge the status quo, to demand change is to challenge  society's priorities, prejudices, allocation of resources.  It is a challenge to the political process, to economic and social structures.  The Jesus of the synoptic gospels delivered a radical political message, as his followers so should we.  

On politics and theology. Part 8: Jesus was political!

 I do not claim to be a Christian.  Rather, I seek to follow the teaching attributed to Jesus by the authors of the synoptic gospels.  My reading of them is heavily influenced by postmodernism, with particular regard to the ideas formulated by Jacques Derrida.

The synoptic gospels were written many years after the death of Jesus.  No tape-recorders or social media to record verbatim the words he spoke. Instead we have the mysterious 'Q' source, myths, stories, customs handed down from generation to generation to which has to be added the interpretation of this body of information  by the authors and the purpose each of the them had in mind for the material.  Not the firmest foundation on which to develop a theology based on the bible being the inerrant word of God, to be understood and applied literally. 

To understand the reason why Jesus was crucified by the Roman authority in Palestine it is important to tease out why Jesus was perceived to be a political threat to the established  order.  Rome was an occupying power.  It had no problem with conquered nations practicising there indigenous religion and customs, Roman law was the preserve of Roman citizens.  However Rome would not countenance threats to its authority and this is precisely what Jesus was perceived as doing.  On Palm Sunday Jesus rode into Jerusalem to wide acclaim: hosanna they cried.  Here was an existential threat to Roman rule in Palestine, the long-awaited and prophesied servant of God, fomenting an uprising,  who would bring about Jewish independence and sovereignty. The crime was sedition and crucifixion the penalty.

The Roman authority was aided and abetted by the Jewish religious leadership. Jesus had explained on numerous occasions the failure of religious leaders to apply concepts of love and justice as set out in Hebrew scripture.  His elimination would dispose of a threat to their authority.  Yes, Jesus was political, perceived to be a major threat to the stability of the political and religious establishments.  He had to go.

There was a further factor in play:  Jesus is portrayed by the synoptic gospel authors as having challenged economic and social orders, which of course, had political implications.  Hebrew scripture has many exhortations relating to caring for the poor and for systemic change to achieve social justice.  These themes continue in the synoptic gospels: the Sermon on the Mount, the Magnificat, the parables, the commandment to love your neighbour as yourself and following Jesus to bring heaven on earth.  All were threats to the established social order and hierarchies.  They had a political dimension as statements of the need for fundamental change in the ordering of society.

Those of us who have a progressive/liberation theology mindset take these teachings attributed to Jesus and seek to apply the concepts to today's societies.  But, the danger is that we may take a patronising or paternalitic approach, we may act as gatekeepers or guardians of the 'truth'.  In other words our approach often is deductive. Instead we need to take an inductive approach: ask the marginalised, poor and excluded what the teaching of Jesus means to them: not tell them what it means for them.