Well, what a year it has been. Another one full of financial doom and gloom. I’ve never known such a prolonged period of anxiety and pessimism in my lifetime. With our breakfast news we imbibe daily the latest glum forecasts. George Osborne talks of a ‘healing’ of the UK economy but at the same time he warned of years of economic pain ahead. Where is the ‘can-do’ attitude that I’ve seen recently on several trips to America? Though the election exposed the US as a very divided society, there is still a definite spirit of entrepreneurialism over there. There is still an ‘American dream’ that even the poorest and most humble can succeed.
The worst pieces of news in 2012 were to do with youth unemployment and ‘social mobility’. OECD figures last spring showed that Britain has the lowest social mobility in the developed world. Most damning of all was the statistic that the top 1 per cent of the UK has a greater share of national income than at any time since the 1930s. In particular, there is a basic failure in our education system. The same OECD figures found that parental influence has a bigger impact on a child’s outcomes in education than in any other developed country. Yet the quiet revolution in Britain is the growth of academies and free schools: 55 free schools opened in September. In May 2010 there were 203 academies; two years later there were 1,807. The spreading of their benefits throughout the education system is one of the greatest factors in counteracting this dearth of social mobility. I applaud Andrew Adonis, Tony Blair and Michael Gove for their vision.
So does it matter that Old Etonians currently inhabit the ‘top jobs’ — Mayor of London, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Prime Minister, and now Archbishop of Canterbury? Not in the least. This pernicious idea that your schooling is more important than your moral character, temperament and motivation is the reverse side of the coin to the fatalism that accepts second-best from disadvantaged children. The Archbishop of Canterbury-designate, Justin Welby, is clearly the right man at the right time. His key role on the Banking Standards Commission will ensure that the Church can speak with an authoritative voice on some of the most pressing issues of the day. His experience of conciliation in far-flung troublespots makes him best suited to a time when the unruly tribes of the Church of England are again squabbling openly.
In a long-forgotten essay for a theology journal some 25 years ago, I examined the three parties of the church — Anglo-catholics, Evangelicals and Liberals — and compared them to a Russian ‘troika’ of three horses tied unwillingly together, but forced to work as one. At their best these three parties bring their strength and richness to the C of E. At their worst they are tribal and rancorous. At the moment they are pulling the Church apart over the ordination of women bishops. I’m convinced that Justin Welby has all the skills to ensure that women are ordained bishops as soon as possible with the greatest possible degree of unity.
My heart went out to Rowan Williams as he left office, leaving to his great regret the unfinished business of women bishops to his successor. Yet I’m sure he will see his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury as a time of great privilege to serve a Church he loves. He, like me, will have experienced the great mercy and grace of God. It’s an impossible job, with huge areas of responsibility including the Church itself, the Anglican Communion, ecumenical and interfaith responsibilities and public affairs. His greatest strength has been his scholarly ability to explore questions of theology in public dialogue with distinguished leaders like the Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, atheists Richard Dawkins and Philip Pullman and even the comedian Frank Skinner. This gift of bringing Christian thinking to intellectual and artistic spheres should not be underestimated. I hope he will continue to have these public conversations from Cambridge in the years to come.
But let me return to our politicians. I don’t accept that political leaders have the right to interfere with every aspect of life. The patrimony of our country consists of values and traditions that wise leaders should hesitate to trouble. It is not homophobia which prompts me to challenge David Cameron’s decision to extend marriage to homosexual couples, because I support civil partnerships, which put right a basic injustice. I am simply horrified that political leaders have the effrontery to redefine an understanding of marriage upheld by so many for so long. Finally, a happy and hopeful New Year to all readers of The Spectator.
Comments