The launch today of On Rock or Sand a series of essays edited by Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, ‘on the moral principles that undergird the way Britain is governed’ has generated much debate since it was trailed last Thursday, including a direct rebuttal of its basic assertions by David Cameron himself. Amidst the welter of comment, both in favour but also in fierce condemnation, it is hard to ascertain the lasting impact of this ‘pre-election’ volume. Despite the clear marketing strategy to revive stirring memories of the Faith in the City report in the mid-80s, and its repudiation at the hands of Mrs Thatcher’s government, only time will tell whether this volume is one to which we will return in 30 years, or whether, like so many other well-intentioned efforts, it will gather both real and virtual dust.
But what is of little doubt is that the thinking and vision of William Temple, former Archbishop of both York and Canterbury, who died 70 years ago, lies at the heart of this latest attempt to re-position the Church of England in the political life of this country. The volume (on the basis of pre-released extracts) appears to rely explicitly on three ideas central to Temple’s thought, as expounded in his book Christianity and Social Order published in 1942.
The first is the right of the church to intervene when it perceives that the current social order is deficient. Temple is unequivocal in this assertion. ‘The Church must announce Christian principles and point out where the existing order at any time is in conflict with them.’
Second, is the core theological belief in the innate dignity of every person, derived from their being created imago dei – i.e. made in the image of God. For Temple, this becomes the basis of ethics and politics; to bestow ‘respect for every person simply as a person’ and so, ‘to give the fullest possible scope to the exercise of powers and qualities that are distinctly personal …and the widest extension of personal responsibility’.
Finally, there’s the importance of generating solidarity. Temple believed in the importance of the family as well as what he called intermediate groupings (voluntary groups, neighbourhood associations) that help develop a sense of belonging and reciprocity: ‘We feel as though we count for something and that others depend on us’. The state should, in Temple’s view, safeguard ‘the liberty that fosters such groupings’.
A danger for a book like this, which relies on Temple for its core ideas, is that it will be seen as nostalgic for an age that has past. Does it suggest a church that has stopped generating new ideas? Some of this might explain the very ambivalent attitude towards Temple and his legacy that exists in certain Anglican circles and which we, as the Foundation which bears his name, sometimes find ourselves embroiled in.
On the one hand a recent book entitled Anglican Social Theology unambiguously states that the Church has moved beyond the Temple tradition. It has been overwhelmed, say the authors, by the pluralism of current society (i.e. claims to consensus are untenable) and been superseded by the fashionable turn to post-liberal theologies which are sceptical of worldly ideologies, empirical research and necessity of a public state to regulate against the worst excesses of human pride and violence.
And yet the irony of that book is that in spending so much time talking about Temple and how we have moved on, it raises the lack of a viable alternative. One alternative is the current focus on the business/management approach to church mission and engagement (see for example the Green report). Whilst having much to offer, this approach will never have the depth of analysis or indeed vision which will help resource the many hard-pressed clergy and lay people working at the front-line of an increasingly needy and confused society.
Perhaps this is why, when the chips appear to be down, and the Church needs to remind itself and others that it has a public and political relevance, the Temple tradition proves its worth yet again.
Of course one must guard against complacency and a one-dimensional response in the way that Temple’s ideas are applied to the diversity, complexity and fluidity of the current age. The Foundation is acutely aware of this fact. Which is why our publications, research and public events are about how we incarnate a progressive, inclusive, rigorously-researched view of the Christian faith in particular, and religion in general, in the public sphere.
For example John Atherton’s latest bookreminds the Church (perhaps unfashionably) of the immense benefits, empirically proven, to humankind brought about in the last 200 years of human history by economics and technological advances. The paradox of this growth against the backdrop of also growing inequality cannot be resolved by simplistic moralistic sloganeering but the progressive, careful and empirical engagement of religious insights and traditions to ensure that religion and economics are once again re-connected for the good of all.
Out latest research project Reimaging Religion and Belief for Public Policy and Practice (with Goldsmiths, University of London) maps current theories and empirical research into the global re-emergence of religion across several disciplines such a sociology, anthropology, critical human geography, theology, public and social policy. It will share this mapping with central and local government as a contribution to a more enlightened and nuanced understanding of how religion is lived in the public sphere and how governments can better engage with faith communities.
These are just two examples of the many ways in which the Foundation attempts to break open the still powerful, resonant vision of a just and humane social order outlined by William Temple, within the complexity and uncertainty of our modern age.
Professor Craig Calhoun, Director of the London School of Economics, who gave a keynote lecture at our recent conference reminded us that reality is only partly expressed in material things. So much of what constitutes truth, he said, is what we give ourselves permission to think and believe; in other words our social imaginary.
Calhoun suggests that part of Temple’s enduring impact is that he reminded us we cannot derive what we need from interpersonal relationships alone (like our family). Rather, we also need large and complex institutions to help us have good relationships with one another, and we cannot simply act on our short-term and narrow impulses, and choose who we love and care for. In other words we need an enabling and capacious state; we need to make it work for us but ultimately it is there to remind us and embody for us the basic command to love God and our neighbour, and thus to fulfil the political and economic destiny for which we were born.
Chris Baker is Director of Research at William Temple Foundation
Archbishop John Sentamu will deliver the 2015 William Temple Foundation Annual Lecture, on Wednesday 18th March. Tickets are free – book now!
Much has been written in the past week about the unresolved relationship between religious and secular identities, as well as on freedom of speech in a pluralistic democratic state. There is huge uncertainty as to what the traumatic events of the last few days herald for the future direction of France as a nation (and indeed Europe as a whole). Will France become a nation that learns to be at ease with diversity, and especially the right for religious identities, practices and discourses to be visibly expressed in the public sphere? That seemed to be the overwhelming sentiment of the millions of French citizens from all backgrounds who gathered to reclaim the public space in the name of tolerance, inclusion and fraternity over the weekend.
In contrast, there is still the possibility for France to become a nation unable to address the complexities of past-colonial histories and rapid change, allowing the loud (but minority) voices of division and simplistic ‘them and us’ rhetoric to prevail? This latter voice holds little prospect of moving forward – it is a politics based on regressive (i.e. inward looking) fear, rather than progressive (i.e. outward looking) hope.
Although extremism is not its explicit focus, William Temple Foundation’s forthcoming conference on the theme of Politics of Hope: Exploring the role and impact of faith-based leadership in local communities goes right to the heart of the issues of the past week. Namely, how do we construct a local progressive politics of hope that works across ideological and cultural divides to produce outcomes that reflect the common aspirations of most citizens for a just, inclusive and flourishing state?
The first is to highlight the increasingly significant role of progressive (i.e. outward looking) local religious leadership for those in government and local authorities. Faith groups are generally one of the most effective and trusted catalysts for progressive social change, especially in communities facing the greatest deficits in public services as a result of austerity politics. The sort of questions we will be exploring are: Are faith groups now the catalysts for progressive alliances across faith and secular divides? How might the policy landscape change if this narrative was openly discussed as part of a debate on new forms of political engagement and activism?
The second aim is to inspire and create new thinking within faith groups themselves as to the possibility of playing more upfront roles as political leaders and facilitators. This, it is hoped, will enhance their confidence and creativity in the face of misunderstanding and occasional mistrust from some (but by no means all) secular agencies.
The conference will meet these aims by creating an interactive event in which three examples of faith-based welfare will be presented, followed by a facilitated reflection process that will allow the full impact of these projects to emerge: what has changed since 2008; who is volunteering within the spaces provided by faith-based welfare and social care; how should we define impacts; what can we learn about good practice?
The three case studies that will shape the thinking and refection of the conference are: an ecumenical community project pioneering innovative experiments in building local community in Hodge Hill, East Birmingham, presented by Rev. Al Barrett; Eat n Meet – a food programme for homeless and vulnerable people in Leicester run by the local Muslim community and presented by Salma Ravat; and an exploration of alternative economies focussed on justice/shalom and based on the establishment of a local currency called the Bristol Pound, presented by Chris Sunderland.
The conference concludes with a free public lecture by Steve Chalke MBE who is the founder of Oasis UK. His lecture, based on the title of the conference, will explore how faith groups are taking up the challenges and opportunities presented by the shift to an austerity-localism landscape and the tensions and pitfalls this involves: how to be both authentic and inclusive; how to model best practice for others; how to address structural inequality whilst caring for the individual; how do we understand the new covenant between the state, the market and civil society; what is the role of religion in all of this?
The main question that I will be bringing to the conference is this: Will the new forms of engagement and solidarity epitomised by these case studies help identify the path ahead for a progressive localism that seeks to create flourishing and resilient communities for all? Or will the goodwill, hard work and creativity of both the faith sector and wider community and voluntary sector be cynically co-opted by both the state and the market as a way of providing social care on the cheap, and which leaves fundamental structures of inequality unacknowledged and unchallenged?
Come alongand have your say. We would love to see you
Chris Baker is Director of Research at William Temple Foundation
Building a Politics of Hope will be held on Tuesday 24th February in central London. Click here to book tickets.
Government statistics published at the end of December show that the poorest 10% of the UK population may be at risk of malnutrition. Following what is traditionally a period of over-indulgence at Christmas, these figures are even more disturbing. Rising food prices are one possible cause, but it is also to do with the actual food that is being consumed and its poor nutritional value. Significant numbers of poor people are consuming fewer calories than they need to maintain their full body weight. Last year the poorest 10% of the population spent over 20% more on nutrition than in 2007, but received 7% less in return. Furthermore, there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor. Does this matter? Apart from obvious issues of justice and equality, such statistics bring to the surface one of the immediate effects of poverty and its impact upon the whole of people’s lives. Without appropriate diet and nutrition, none of us will be able to function effectively as we might, and other problems of health, wellbeing and economic and social activity will be set in train.
So whose fault is this? Although the churches and related charities have been drawing to the policy makers’ attentions the growing demand on foodbanks and the fact that it is people already in work who are becoming increasingly dependent upon them, there is a tendency in government to point the finger at the victims themselves. A Conservative peer, Baroness Jenkin of Kennington, asserted that poor people are going hungry because they do not know how to cook; basic cooking skills have been lost with the result that poor people are unable to produce nutritious meals from scratch. This is but one example of what has become an established mantra within both political and media circles — if there is a problem, look first (and even solely) at the individuals concerned, and ignore any structural or system failures resulting from government policies.
A recent book emerging from the growing body of literature known as behavioural economics brings such an interpretation into sharp relief. In Scarcity: The True Cost of Not Having Enough Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir present a series of concepts to suggest that any of us placed in a situation of poverty and scarcity would find ourselves facing the same problems and challenges. Their basic concepts are: tunneling/focus; myopia; bandwidth (capacity); slack in the system; shock; quick fixes; attending to the urgent but not to the important. Without going into the details of these, it is possible to see that this is, in some ways, an expanded version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. In other words, one has to be able to operate at the more basic levels of human needs, food, warmth, shelter, and we could add nutrition and diet, before one can begin to function effectively, let alone think about the demands further up in one’s life. When the immediate concern is to buy enough food, and therefore have enough money, just to feed oneself (and one’s dependents) for the next week, one is less likely to be able to think beyond this and to engage in even medium-term, let alone long-term, planning or strategies to counter the deeper problems. When a person has only limited bandwidth (or what I would call capacity) to begin to think about and address a host of immediate issues, other concerns get put to one side. Those who rely on payday loans, for instance, live from short-term loan to short-term loan, often getting deeper and deeper into debt, in order simply to deal with the immediate shortage of money. To the extent that this is the case, the political culture of “blaming the victim” is a deliberate ploy to deflect attention from the underlying issues and their causes.
Another term that we might use to describe what becomes scarce in this context is energy. The problem with a deficit of nutrition is that one is left without the requisite energy to tackle or address the myriad problems that one is faced with. Anyone suffering from even a short-term illness will recognise that one becomes so focused on the immediate symptoms and their hoped-for relief that other concerns slip rapidly down one’s personal agenda. As horizons narrow (as they also tend to do for those in older age) and one tunnels into the immediate, the energy to deal with wider issues diminishes and dissipates. One could even extend this to current UK politics with its narrow focus upon austerity and deficit reduction: all the energy goes into these objectives at the cost of other concerns such as health, education and environment. The effect of this, as the churches have been only too ready to point out, is that overall levels of wellbeing then suffer and inequalities increase at the cost of the whole; even tax returns diminish!
So our energies need to be expanded and redirected. This impacts both upon our understandings of economics and how humans function in practice, rather than according to the theories; hence the potential value of some aspects of behavioural economics and the insights it gleans from research in psychology, and also upon Religious Studies which now moves towards a greater acknowledgement of the material nature of our existence. As my colleague John Atherton has pointed out in his recent book Challenging Religious Studies: The Wealth, Wellbeing and Inequalities of Nations, calorific or nutritional deficiencies are sources of deprivation, and there was a point in the early 19th century when 20% of Britain’s population was unable to work because of this problem. Further, in a forthcoming book, A Philosophy of Christian Materialism: Entangled Fidelities and the Common Good (Baker, James and Reader, Ashgate 2015), we argue that recent developments in philosophy can broaden our understanding of what it is to be human, taking into account the interrelationships or assemblages that constitute a realist approach, and the crucial challenge of seeing the human in relation to the non-human (which would include the food that we eat). The scarcities that we face relate both to food, income and welfare, but also to political and religious imagination, all of which are required to redirect our activities towards the greater good.
John Reader is an Associate Research Fellow of the William Temple Foundation.
Join the discussion on foodbanks and more at our pre-election conference, in partnership with Church Urban Fund and the Joint Public Issues Team.