Search This Blog

Sunday, 22 February 2015

Amen to Archbishops - Thank God for Will Hutton.

Readers will know that I do not espouse any of the Abrahamic religions. In fact I have a strong distaste for much of the trappings & beliefs of the established churches. However I do think that we should take the time to read the Archbishops letter, "Who is my Neighbour". I have attached a link to copy & paste below.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=3050b4a950&view=att&th=14bb186cb82f774e&attid=0.1&disp=safe&zw


Will Hutton is a journalist & writer who I have long admired. I think he is thoughtful and considered & generally has something worthwhile to say. I have reproduced his piece for the Observer.

Observer 22 Feb 2015 – Will Hutton: Don’t condemn the Church. Who else argues for the common good?


There are doubts and debates at the highest level of the civil service about the cost of Trident. On balance, officials and chiefs of staff still support it, not least because cancellation would irrevocably remove one of the last props of Britain’s great-power status. But the case is not open and shut. The cost verges on the impossible, with unpalatable and irrational choices forced on the rest of our military capability to pay for a weapon system that will never be used. It is closer to a 51/49 call than the wider debate recognises.

Yet when the Church of England’s bishops urge that the question be publicly discussed as part of a grownup debate about the future of our country and the quest for the common good, they are dismissed by right-of-centre commentators, Tory MPs and some ministers as a bunch of closet leftists making a political statement. They should get out of politics, and stop making unsolicited interventions like last week’s letter, Who is my neighbour?, directed to the people and parishes of the Church of England.

Read the letter yourself and make your own judgment on whether this is a leftist tract pockmarked with mistakes, or a necessary and compelling intervention from one of the country’s last remaining, if diminished, sources of moral authority. What has moved Anglican leaders to write is the distressing condition of so many of the people that the church encounters in its daily ministry – living, increasingly, in a society of strangers, as the leaders would say, often lonely, uncertain about the prospects of a career or to what extent the social bargain will help them out. The Church of England is one of the last few institutions in touch, through its parishes, with the entire country. Before a general election whose result will be fateful for state and society alike, the bishops feel compelled by their faith to spell out the need for politics to recover the language and conviction of serving the common good.

This is inconvenient for our political leaders, especially for those in government. The majority of the country may no longer have faith, but those who lead the church do – and they remind the rest of us of our forgotten Christian roots. The whole point about Jesus Christ, state the bishops, was that he came to Earth and experienced the human condition before meeting a painful death. “Christians everywhere and throughout the ages,” they write, “have prayed, as part of the Lord’s Prayer, ‘Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on Earth as in heaven.’ That is why politics and the life of the Christian disciple cannot be separated. That is why the church calls its members to play a full part in the political life of the nation.”

The Christian quest for “at-oneness”, they argue, with each other and God, can only be achieved in a spirit of respect, neighbourliness and a mutual search for the common good. This means demanding that politics starts addressing big questions – “a richer justification of the state, the purpose of government and a more serious way of talking about taxation”. They accuse the parties of failing to offer “attractive visions of the kind of society and culture they wish to see, or distinctive goals they might pursue. Instead, we are subjected to sterile arguments about who might manage the existing system best. There is no idealism in this prospectus.”

They cite Attlee in 1945 and Thatcher in 1979 as examples of the kind of politics they have in mind – both politicians in their view nuanced in their idealism (Attlee as a statist respecting voluntarism; and Thatcher as a pro-marketeer respecting the social responsibilities of business) as they tried to serve the whole country. Now, however, they suggest, we need a new breadth of vision that can address the problems and realities of today’s Britain. It is not on offer.

The bishops are a last redoubt of moral authority that insists on the primacy of a public realm that serves the common good – for all the pushback from Tory MPs and ministers mocking their emptying churches, accusing them of being left sympathisers or reminding them, as the prime minister did, that growth is bringing the jobs and job security they crave. None of these responses spoke the language of common good, or even accepted it as a premise for political action. We live in a world where the utterances of a Stuart Rose, former-chair of Marks and Spencers, or even private-equity magnate and tax exile Stefano Pessina, about what is good for business – good for mammon – have become the new moral authority.

In his important new book, Mammon’s Kingdom, David Marquand charts the decline of the constituencies and individuals that once joined together, however imperfectly, to act as vital countervailing voices to those of private market interests. Some, like the trade unions, have had decline thrust on them by changed employment laws and economic structures along with media demonisation, but have also not risen to the challenge of changed times with a reframed purpose and rhetoric. Professionals who try to speak for a public interest from a position of disinterest – teachers, doctors, climate-change scientists, social workers, civil servants – are now derided as necessarily money-seeking or partisans. It’s as if everyone knows that everyone else is self-interested, pushing the point of view they hold that benefits them. There is no possible attainable objectivity or impartiality – another reason to abolish the BBC or degrade the civil service. The only objective truth is what might contribute to “wealth generation”.

Centres of local and civic power have been denuded of resource – they might dare to exercise taxing or planning power that a Lord Rose or Mr Pessina would consider anti-business. And lastly, Marquand argues, too many intellectuals, writers and academics seem reluctant to engage in the risks of public argument. And even if they did, the gatekeepers for expression are firmly in the hands of the centre-right consensus. All that is left is organised religion and when it does speak out, as it did last week, it speaks for palpably declining congregations.

Mammon now rules, declares Marquand. But he thinks that the rediscovery of a richer discourse of the common good will necessarily be drawn from religious traditions, even writing as he does as an unbeliever. The bishops have not let him down. They cite Saint Paul’s letter to the Philippians as an inspiration that should bind believers and non-believers. “Whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” They long, they say, for a more humane society that reflects Saint Paul’s injunction – a better politics for a better nation. 

Amen, you might say, to that.

We each have a responsibility to be well informed about the issues. We have a responsibility to question the politicians we vote for from a knowledge based vantage point. Our votes each count. We cannot abnegate responsibility. If we do, we deserve all that we get. Each of us is powerful when acting together.

This will be a critical election for all sorts of reasons. Make your voice heard above the baying of the politicians.


No comments:

Post a Comment