Well, we didn't see that one coming, did we? The Archbishop of Canterbury has had to rethink who he actually is. As was revealed in the Daily Telegraph last night, his father turns out not to be his biological father after all, and his real father was another man with an 'interesting' life.
The Archbishop has demonstrated once again why he is the right man for the job. Look at his statement. Not a shred of self-pity or any attempt to use this news for some politico-emotional gain. His identity is secure in being known and loved by God (and I had no idea this was coming when I did Pause for Thought on the Chris Evans Show on BBC Radio 2 yesterday morning and quoted the same Psalm) – in being “in Christ”. No excuses rooted in genetics – no loss of perspective, given the recognition that people have to deal with such news every day (and worse). His senses of humour and irony have not gone – his security as a person remains intact. His theology is big enough to cope with challenge.
It is also worth remarking that Charles Moore's handling of both the investigation and the reporting of the result have been a model of good journalism. There was no sensationalism and no prurience – just clear, sensitive and humane observation on response to reality. It is very impressive and clearly a model of how journalism can work in the public interest with the parties being observed.
But, it is unfortunate for the Prime Minister that this revelation has coincided with a torrid week for David Cameron and his family. The truth about his benefits from offshore investments has had to be dragged out of him. Today even he admits it could have been handled better. And the political hounds are in pursuit.
It is not hard to recognise the case against David Cameron in his apparent obfuscation while in a public office that has demanded transparency from others. And he would certainly not be surprised to see people like me adding to the pain.
But, I feel sympathy for him. He is a human being and he has a family. He has always known who his father is. And this week the human being has been in tension with the public being in a world in which there is little room (or sympathy) for both. How do you cope with trying to protect your memory of your own father when it is under attack – not for its own sake, but because of who the son is and what he does for a living?
Now, I realise that people will respond that he chose to be in office and has to take what goes with it. I get that completely. Then they will argue that hypocrisy is unacceptable in public office, and, again, I will agree (even if even those who complain about the hypocrisy of others ignore their own hypocrisies). Next they will claim that this is bigger than just one prime minister or one politician, and that this is just one obvious symptom of a deeper and wider systemic corruption – one inherent to the unjust world in which we live. And I will nod to that one, too. And, just to be clear, I think the whole “offshore tax avoidance or money laundering” thing is scandalous and wrong.
But, I also see a man trying to not have his dad rubbished in public in a way that dehumanises.
OK, David Cameron deserves the scrutiny and some criticism. But, let's not forget the man behind the office (even if we insist on reminding him and his government of the human faces and vulnerabilities subject to some of the ideological policies that shape their lives and relationships and memories).
The Archbishop of Canterbury now has to consider his shaping of the memory of two men: the one he thought was his father and the man who he now knows is his father. The Prime Minister has to hold on to the memory of his father while abstracting himself from that in order to do the moral politics his office demands. I sympathise with both men.
Posted with Blogsy
Nick Baines's Blog 
April 9, 2016 at 6:59 pm
I agree with you Bishop Nick. I too sympathise with both men. They are both trying their hardest to fulfil very public roles where there is little sympathy for failure, of any sort, whether actual or imagined.
My feeling is that the Archbishop has handled his situation very honourably and, at the same time, shown he is a very human being. Mr Cameron, I suspect, has a few more weeks of the public humiliation to ride out before the furore begins to settle. I am also inclined to the opinion that this affair might just incline him to withdraw from public office a little sooner than he otherwise may have done.
April 9, 2016 at 9:18 pm
Archbishop Welby’s reaction has been inspirational and Charles Moore clearly reported his overiding emphasis about his identity in Christ. Thank you for striking a humane faithful balance in comparison with David Cameron’s quandary.
April 10, 2016 at 12:29 am
ABC has handled more emotional stuff so much better than the PM who has floundered over financial issues.
April 10, 2016 at 11:21 am
In today’s age of “transparency ” I think the time has come to repeal the tax avoidance schemes and “pay to Ceaser what is due to Ceaser
April 10, 2016 at 1:25 pm
Reblogged this on hungarywolf.
April 10, 2016 at 6:48 pm
Interesting and [reasonably] sympathetic posting, and how well Archbishop Justin Welby has responded to what might have been strangely unsettling news.
But I wonder still why the story about David Cameron should be treated as major scandal? It is not illegal for funds to be transmitted via this offshore system – it was intended for easier dealing within dollar currencies – and there has not been any charge of breaking the law.
There is at the same time a distinction between tax ‘avoidance’ and tax ‘evasion’ – and we conflate all these things to make a big story to discredit David Cameron …why should his father be dragged through the media in this way, and while the principle is fair – transparency – is it not dismal that the £30,000 at stake is treated as worse than the billions syphoned off by various dictators and Heads of State, where the money is not even their just inheritance, but stolen from the people of their countries?
April 11, 2016 at 9:17 am
Responding to Lavender Buckland’s comments above: Cameron may establish that his tax record isn’t too naughty without blowing away the bad odour. What about his claim that ‘we’re all in this together’? And beyond his personal finances, how much of his political support comes via tax havens? And is it OK to ride on stories of ‘benefit scroungers’ while evading the apparent intentions of the tax system (whether legally or not)? Who made the laws to whose advantage? I think Nick is being very kind here!
April 11, 2016 at 1:03 pm
Right and perceptive to acknowledge and point up the sensitivity of the journalist on the ABC story: I hadn’t thought about that but it’s true and has helped.
On Cameron and tax, my sense is that people say they are against tax ‘dodging’ but they are actually more against extreme wealth, which Cameron has. I sometimes wonder whether the C of E shouldn’t make more of its counter cultural policy of paying senior people or bishops so relatively little. People I speak to are amazed to hear that bishops’ stipends are as low as they are.