Some thoughts on denial

To paraphrase the song – it's not what you do, it's the way that you do it.

In a capitalist state, and one effectively integrated into a global economy at that, consumption of material has become a societal necessity. Our consumption is the engine that drives productivity, and, hopefully, helps raise the size of our economy and our general standard of living. Or something like that. 

Now the problems of excess consumption don't need to be noted here, only to say that on a day to day basis it is question of degree and consequence. There's nothing intrinsically wrong, for instance, with eating chocolate. There are even some health benefits. The problem is that too much and you end up looking like this lad here. Consequence not only for you but for society in general. In 2002 for example the NHS estimated that it spent between £945,000,000 and £1.075 billion treating the consequences of obesity (in addition to the £45.8 million and £49 million it spent on treating the direct causes of obesity). Those figures can be found here, under the 'Obesity' section. That page records obesity levels in the UK as, on the whole, rising significantly since the 1990s. 

By contrast, last year The Daily Telegraph reported that a series of Private Finance Initiative hospital schemes were being scrapped as a result of the Credit Crunch. Their cumulative cost was £2.5 billion. The largest scheme, at University Hospitals Leicester, was worth £711 million (i.e. £234 million less than the NHS's lowest estimate for what it paid to treat obesity 7 years earlier).

Well then, there's a reason to cut back on one area of our personal consumption. The Credit Crunch as a whole would seem to be another. Like it or not, as a nation we are significantly in debt. I'm not going to pretend that it's not possible to spend years outrunning your debts. The question is whether it's advisable. As demonstrated above, what is personally pleasing may not always be collectively rewarding. 

This harks back to the Prisoner's Dilemma, a hypothetical problem proposed in Game Theory. In short, two suspects to an armed robbery are arrested. The police have enough evidence to sentence them to six months for continued minor parking offences. They cannot though prove that these prisoners committed the robbery, for which they would receive 10 years. So they separate them, and propose to each prisoner a deal. They will release them free of charge if they testify against the other prisoner. 

From each prisoner's perspective it is in their interests to cooperate with the police. Collectively however, as we can see from our external perspective, it is in neither prisoner's interests. As far as they know cooperation means they walk free. We can see though that cooperation means 5 year prison terms each. 

We can see therefore that it comes down to perspective. I'm not trying to say that whenever we pick up a Twix we should be considering the NHS operational budget for this year in our thoughts (though it may help if we do it occasionally!). It is more keeping John Donne's maxim in mind: 'No man is an island'. Our actions have continued consequences for those around us. At the same time though, there's not much to be said for needless denial. 

Strangely enough this is all leading towards a Biblical end. Before I start on this part, can I credit David Harris and Nick Gowers, our ministers at St. Leonards, from whom I'm 'borrowing' (ahem!) much of this next section. I thoroughly recommend you listen to some of their sermons here if you haven't already. 

In 1 Timothy Paul writes to Timothy at Ephesus telling him, among others points, that the teachings at the Ephesian church are utterly un-Christian. They deny that Christians can marry, or consume certain foods (see 1 Timothy 4). Nick pointed out this morning that Paul has an unarguable point in mind. Christian teaching holds that Christ reunified us in proper relation with God, and with creation, with His Sacrifice. As such denial of God's gifts to us - marriage and food in this case - is a denial of the full power of the Crucifixion and Resurrection. 

Christianity does not deny you consumption. Unlike what I believe this lady to be saying here, for instance, the church has little problem with its members having sex. It has a problem with non-marital sex, or at least it should, as it believes that marriage is given to us by God to reflect the love among the Trinity, and as such sex should occur there. I may come back to that, as I'm not sure in what I've just written, but among other considerations there is the slight membership problem we may have if we did disapprove of sex itself. 

Ultimately though, where Christianity questions your consumption is in asking why you're consuming as you do. In 1 Corinthians 8, for example, Paul advises not eating foods offered to idols where you're eating them could cause doubts in fellow Christians. The foods themselves are not bad, but you eating them could harm others. What we have is God given, and we should consume those gifts as such.