So, yesterday St Paul’s Cathedral Chapter dropped its legal action against the camp protesters – not all of whom are anti-capitalist per se, despite the media shorthand categorisation – and the Corporation of London ‘paused’ their action to evict. This has allowed a fresh approach to the whole issue.
This morning I woke up to two stories: (a) the Archbishop of Canterbury writing in the Financial Times about the need now to move from general protest to specific solutions and (b) the Bishop of London doing a good job on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme.
The point of both of these was to push the agenda away from the protests themselves and on to the reason behind the protests: the frustration of millions of people around the world that the people who caused the global financial collapse continue as if little has happened (bonuses, etc.) and everybody else suffers. These questions – regardless of how we got to them in the last couple of weeks – will now be centre-stage as the particular ‘issue’ of St Paul’s and its handling of matters steps back into the less interesting shadows.
It would be interesting to see where the imagination is to be found within the spheres of pension funds, banks, financial institutions for re-shaping a global financial system in which reward is based less on numbers and more on ethics, and in which the distribution of wealth is driven by a vision of the common good and less by the compulsion to ‘have more’. The concept of ‘reqard’ might be significant here.
The world we are now in demands unusual business. That is to say, responses to the current crisis seem mostly to be technical and within current assumptions of what an economy is and how an economy works. It is at the level of assumption that the protests are directed.
What is now required – while these questions are on the front page, as it were – is a re-visioning of what an economy is for. Surely the mantra of the last thirty years, that we are economic beings in an economic market, is being seriously challenged. We do not exist for the market (the market economy); rather, the economy exists for us (a human economy).
This now needs to be cashed out in technical terms (bank taxes, challenges to assumptions about ‘attracting the right people by paying the hiughest salaries, etc.) and the advantages, costs, etc. identified. Many of us won’t understand the financial technicalities. But, we can certainly contribute to the articulation of an alternative vision.
Off to another day of meetings…
November 2, 2011 at 8:34 am
Many thanks Nick. Agree with all you say but would suggest it is not siimply ‘human economy’ but an economy for all creatures and the planet for whom we humans have a God given responsibility
November 2, 2011 at 9:12 am
It is a relief to see the Church now moving on to the next stage, and encouraging to see the Bishop of London take an imaginative stand (though I appreciated your earlier explanation of the division of responsibilities and why it was not possible for him to do so earlier).
Meanwhile, as you say:
“It would be interesting to see where the imagination is to be found within the spheres of pension funds, banks, financial institutions for re-shaping a global financial system…”
It is worrying that the last few years of complaint by the general public about the solipsistic attitudes of the City of London appear to have made almost no dent in the smugness of their institutions.
Personally, I do not think Archbishop Rowan’s suggestion of a ‘Robin Hood’ tax would help – as I understand it, this would simply be a tax on the middle classes, usually elderly, who are relying on their modest savings to keep them in their old age. As one of those likely to be affected, I would say that, wouldn’t I! Should not the target rather be those in the plutocrat class (to which I neither belong nor aspire to belong!)
November 2, 2011 at 9:44 am
“The world we are now in demands unusual business.”
And a change from politics as usual. The present problems can’t be abstracted from three interlinked elephantine facts:
1. the unsustainability of the euro as a continent-wide currency;
2. the unsustainability of deficit budgeting (imposing debt obligations on our children)
3. the grave political danger of depending on Chinese capital.
November 2, 2011 at 10:51 am
I listened to the Bishop of London on Radio 4 as we drove back from Bradford (after an overnight stop) this morning. He did brilliantly to bring the issue back to the teaching of Jesus about money and wealth.
I also found Anne Atkins’ (who normally is like fingernails scraped down a blackboard for me) ‘Thought for the day’ a superb encapsulation of Jesus teaching and a warning against over-simplifying his view.
I began to feel that good will come out of the St Paul’s muddle if it makes Christians think deeply about “What would Jesus do” and talk about it, and contribute to the deepfelt desire of so many people to change our economic system.
November 2, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Thank you so much for all you are saying.
I have never understood the mantra “attracting the “right” people by paying the highest salaries”. I always want to scream “Are there no “right” people out there who would work for a lesser salary?”
I also felt John that what Anne Atkins said was superb!
Barbara
November 2, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Thank you so much for all you are saying.
I have never understood the mantra “attracting the “right” people by paying the highest salaries”. I always want to scream “Are there no “right” people out there who would work for a lesser salary?”
I also felt John that what Anne Atkins said was superb!
November 2, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Where there is money to be made – there will be people who want to be richer.
Any system is only as good as its worst member, so its hard to see how change can actually be affected when the richest corporations can afford to buy the political favours to protect their interests.
Even if you did away with money – the attraction of power will remain undiminished.
The trappings of success, the power to change and the finery of position are a magnet to many – even in the church.
Maybe if MPs were paid minimum wage and had a 2-term maximum or archbishops lived with the same means as a curate – maybe things would be different.
“What would Jesus do” is an interesting question – I suspect he would begin by asking questions about the wealth of his many churches first.
November 2, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Well, Jesus would not charge £14.50 to enter his house, nor would he take hand outs from the greed driven markets that the Cathedral finds itself in bed with. There are a lot of things that Jesus wouldnt do – and they are things the Cathedral is doing.
November 2, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Is it true that an ‘Occupy Bradford’ group has set up outside the town hall ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15540224
November 2, 2011 at 3:04 pm
“We do not exist for the market (the market economy); rather, the economy exists for us (a human economy).” Well said, though I take in what Bishop Paul said about our stewardship of the whole earth and it’s creatures and resources.
In years past my friends would have seen these sort of protests as the frustrated masses being manipulated by anarchists and anti-capitalists. (Assange’s manifesto brings me little hope.) These days I hope and wonder whether we really could re-think our societal values, away from the idol of capital and profit, and towards an economy stewarding the nurture of humans and creation. Neither communism nor anarchism offer very workable solutions, and I’ve not seen anyone propose an economic model that rewards the right sort of values and takes into account human nature, while it is honoring our best hopes and dreams. (Though some have gone back to Holy Scripture to have a go at a better model.)
November 2, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Ideally, markets are like Twitter: both harness the “wisdom of crowds”.
They can smooth out glut and famine and evaluate risk, but are tipped into malfunction by public and private factors such as tax/ subsidy, regulation, insider trading or corruption. The more free from such distortion the more we all benefit. If more of us invested directly and were able to excercise our voice/influence whether for green energy,social housing or whatever, the more our collective wisdom and priorities would be expressed. We would however have the responsibility to
” put our money where our mouths are!”
If a banker or director is as highly rewarded as a footballers, I can live with it: it is when a closed shop of remuneration committees fix it for each other to the detriment of corporate or private shareholder alike that I resent it.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
That said, the biggest villains are not the businessmen but the politicians.
No business can steal the savings of the prudent or poor, by casually printing money whist enjoying taxpayer funded inflation proof incomes and pensions.
Equally no business has or can run a deficit budget like France (since1974) or can get away with filing no auditted accounts like the EU.
It is the political class which should be the primary focus for discontent and the continuing news from Europe is showing who the truly irresponsible ” business as usual” villains are.
November 2, 2011 at 5:17 pm
PS – Toby
Tony Youngs blog on the Telegraph website offers a critique of the Archbishop’s position for those
interested in the unfolding debate.
November 2, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Actually I think ++Rowan has, whether by accident or design, entered the debate at just the right time and moved it on to the substantive issues. What also fascinates me is the number of people who seem to know ‘what Jesus would do’. The danger with this is that we just remake Jesus in the image of our prejudices and attitudes. He desrves better than a cliche.
November 7, 2011 at 8:43 am
[...] of hostility (from the London Mayor, the government), the Dean was yet to resign and Anglican bishops and archbishops hadn’t spoken publicly about the protest. It was [...]