There are two words with a common root which have been dancing with each other in my mind over the weekend.
The first is equality – a term popular in social and political discourse. In a democracy like ours, most people prize equality of opportunity as regards education or
work, or equality of access to health and welfare services. And we want such things especially for people who have historically been marginalised – women, ethnic
minorities, children born into poverty, people with learning difficulties and so on.
The goal of equality has, of course, some disadvantages. We don't all start on a level playing field. The family we are born into, the wealth that does or doesn't
surround us, and to some extent our genetic inheritance can create a negative or positive bias. The fact that some are gifted with superb intellectual abilities,
artistic talents and creative skills also makes equality a difficult goal to strive for.
The other word in my mind is equity. Its etymology is the same as equality, but its associations are more to do with the law than politics. Equity also features in the
vocabulary of religion. Time and again in the Hebrew scriptures, especially the psalms and the prophets, God is celebrated as one who judges with equity, and God wills
that those who govern should rule with equity.
Equity is about fair-mindedness; not equality of opportunity, but equality in the way in which citizens of a nation are treated. When we speak about everyone being
'equal under the law' we are referring to one of the most positive aspects of how a good society functions. It is a keystone of democracy.
This year I've worked in eight European nations and have been pondering what equity might mean when governments have to deal with financial deficits. One implication which strikes me is that those who are the most advantaged in terms of wealth, power and privilege should feel the effect of austerity measures as much as those who are least advantaged.
I'm drawn to an incident in the Gospels where Jesus is observing people putting money in the plate. Wealthy men seem to donate a lot, but it is a poor window giving
her last two coins who is praised for her generosity. The wealthy gave from their excess, but she gave all she had.
That she decided to be so selflessly generous was her choice. To my mind an equitable society is one in which the poorest as much the wealthiest should always be able to make that kind of choice.