The following is by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. It has been published behind a paywall on the FT site but it is far too important to be left there. It needs wider airing, and so in view of its importance to all Anglicans and non-Anglicans I'm reproducing much if it since on this occasion there won't be debate if it is restricted to those who can pay for the FT:
It's sometimes been said in recent years that the Church of England is still used by British society as a stage on which to conduct by proxy the arguments that society itself does not know how to handle. It certainly helps to explain the obsessional interest in what the Church has to say about issues of sex and gender. It may help to explain just what has been going on around St Paul's Cathedral in the past fortnight.
The protest at St Paul's was seen by an unexpectedly large number of people as the expression of a widespread and deep exasperation with the financial establishment that shows no sign of diminishing. There is still a powerful sense around — fair or not — of a whole society paying for the errors and irresponsibility of bankers; of impatience with a return to ‘business as usual' — represented by still-soaring bonuses and little visible change in banking practices.
So it was not surprising that initial reactions to what was happening at St Paul's and to the welcome offered by the Cathedral were sympathetic. Here were people — protesters and clergy too, it seemed — saying on our behalf that ‘something must be done'. A marker had been put down, though, comfortingly, not in a way that made very specific demands.
The cataract of unintended consequences that followed has been dramatic. The cathedral found itself trapped between what must have looked like equally unpleasant courses of action. Two outstandingly gifted clergy have resigned. The Chapter has now decided against legal action. Everyone has been able to be wise after the event and to pour scorn on the Cathedral in particular and the Church of England in general for failing to know how to square the circle of public interest and protest.
There will be plenty of postmortems no doubt. But before we indulge in yet more satisfying indignation, we should keep two things in mind. First, the Church of England is a place where the unspoken anxieties of society can often find a voice, for good and ill. If the Church cannot find ways through, that is not an index of its incompetence so much as of the sensitivity of such matters. Second, we are at risk of forgetting the substantive questions that prompted the protest.
As I said, the demands of the protesters have been vague. Many people are frustrated beyond measure at what they see as the disastrous effects of global capitalism; but it isn't easy to say what we should do differently. It is time we tried to be more specific.
There is help to be had from a bold statement on our financial situation emerging last week from the Vatican. This document, from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, is entitled ‘Towards Reforming the International Financial and Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority'. It contains, with sharp critical analysis, a rather utopian vision of global regulation. But, more important, it offers recommendations that seek not to change everything at once but to minimise the damage of certain practices and assumptions.
One is something we have now heard clearly from many sources — a plea endorsed by the Vickers Commission that routine banking business should be clearly separated from speculative transactions. The rolling-up of individual and small-scale savings into high-risk and high-return adventures in the virtual economy is one of the more obvious danger areas. Early government action in this area is needed. A second plea is to recapitalise banks with public money. Banks should be obliged in return to help reinvigorate the real economy.
The third suggestion is probably the most far-reaching. The Vatican statement strongly backs the proposal of a Financial Transaction Tax — a “Tobin Tax” or, popularly, a “Robin Hood Tax” in the form in which it has been talked about most recently. This means a comparatively small rate of tax (0.05 per cent) being levied on share, bond, and currency transactions and their derivatives, with the resulting funds being designated for investment in the “real” economy, domestically and internationally. The modest rate of taxation conceals the high levels of return that could be expected (some $410bn globally on one estimate).
This has won the backing of significant experts who cannot be written off as naive anti-capitalists — George Soros, Bill Gates and many others. It is gaining traction among European nations, with a strong statement in support this week from Wolfgang Schaüble, the German finance minister. The objections made by some who claim it would mean a substantial drop in employment and in the economy generally seem to rest on exaggerated and sharply challenged projections — and, more important, ignore the potential of such a tax to stabilise currency markets in a way to boost rather than damage the real economy.
The UK government prefers the model of a direct taxation of bank assets. It looks as though that will be their position at the impending summit of the group of 20 leading economies. But we need robust public discussion enabling us to assess the advantage of a co-ordinated approach across Europe, and to inquire into how far the government's preferred option will guarantee the domestic and international development goals central to the “Robin Hood” proposals.
These ideas, which have been advanced from other quarters, religious and secular, in recent years, do not amount to a simplistic call for the end of capitalism, but they are far more than a general expression of discontent. If we want to take seriously the moral agenda of the protesters at St Paul's, these are some of the ways in which we should be taking it forward. The Church of England and the Church Universal have a proper interest in the ethics of the financial world and in the question of whether our financial practices serve those who need to be served — or have simply become idols that themselves demand uncritical service.
The best outcome from the unhappy controversies at St Paul's will be if the issues raised by the Pontifical Council can focus a concerted effort to move the debate on and effect credible change in the financial world. If religious leaders and commentators in the UK and elsewhere could agree on these three proposals, as a common ground on which to start serious discussion, questionings alike of protesters and clergy will not have been wasted.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Spare some sympathy for the Church of England which to some extent is caught between a rock and a hard place. Much of the protest against bankers, tax havens and the unacceptable face of capitalism is a recent advance – and the Church was certainly caught off-guard by the protest centred on St Pauls
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s (Rowan Williams) statement will have been subject to careful pre-publication editing by Church PR people — to ensure that it resonate equally well with ALL readers.
One passage resonating particularly well with the PSG:-
“The rolling-up of individual and small-scale savings into high-risk and high-return adventures in the virtual economy is one of the more obvious danger areas. Early government action in this area is needed.”
The PSG was always reasonably confident of having God on its side —
Having the Church as well is an added bonus!
Well firstly he makes the mistake that the Church has the slightest relevance to all but a minority of people any more – so we are not in fact using the church as a proxy for our other anxieties… the church’s anxiety about (and chronic inability to deal with) sex, is all it’s own work. That is the church’s problem, not ours.
No – what we have is a fairly cynical belly-laugh… that the church (which has been an instrument of the establishment since Constantine) is once again coming down on the side of old, evil and rich – in direct contradiction to the teachings of Jesus… although to be fair, they seem a bit conflicted about it at the moment. I’ve got a lot of time for Rowan – I think he’s alright. The juggernaut… that he captains though is… horrible, and always has been.
With regards his suggestions. Well no, those are not what Jesus would have suggested. Too meek… (insert glib epithet about earth-inheritance here). He’s not talking about turning over tables of money-changers, he’s talking about adjusting their margins. Slightly. By 0.05%. The Tobin Tax is incredibly meek. INCREDIBLY meek. We don’t need meek, we need radical. We need Jesus.
The vagueness of the 99% movement is in a way part of its genius – and a reflection of the zeitgeist… and the size of the discontent. However, here are some suggestions:
1) All corporate money/bribery out of politics. (transgressors go to prison)
2) Break up the banks
3) Nationalise those aspects of banking that are socially useful.
A lot of things that need to be done, were actually law the in the 1800s US (eg: http://www.genomicon.com/2011/04/a-few-modest-suggestions-revisited/ ). It’s not rocket-science. It was common sense at once point. And the drafters of these old laws were completely right.
Anyway, back to the church: we don’t want someone who will resign for us, we want someone who will fight for us. We need someone with the bloody-mindedness and recklessness and radicalism of Martin Luther… well… ok… we probably don’t “need” that… but if they church is going to be even slightly relevant, that’s what they’re going to need to do.
Until then, the church will remain what it is – a bunch of baffled old celibates in robes dispensing advice about sexual morality… that we occasionally wheel out for ceremonial occasions, and who still haunt the sepulchral shells… custodians of historical artifacts. And good luck to them. We do need people to do that. The artifact-minding bit I mean. Spot of dusting etc. God knows these old places collect it.
I have a great deal of sympathy with all that
Meek is undoubtedly what he’s being
And radical is needed
Dear Nick and Richard,
On the issue of the vagueness of the 99%, take a look at this link https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/?tmpl=%2Fsystem%2Fapp%2Ftemplates%2Fprint%2F&showPrintDialog=1
I was given this link by Canon Peter Challen, Chair of the Christian Council for Monetary Justice (we aren’t all engrossed in dusting our “sepulchral shells, Nick, and in case you haven’t noticed, the C of E hasn’t had enforced celibate clergy for nearly 500 years!),
As Peter notes: “Following the Oct 18 declaration on aspects of contemporary enslavement, this 20-point manifesto from the Occupy Wall Street Working Group is a significant statement”, re-inforcing his point with this quote from John Stuart Mill: “All political revolutions, not affected by foreign conquest, originate in moral revolutions. The subversion of established institutions is merely one consequence of the previous subversion of established opinions.”, and asks who is working on a similar statement and plan in the UK – something we REALLY need, given the way the whole constitution has been stitched up by the puppet-masters in their own interests.
The hopeful thing is that we really may be on the cusp of a paradigm shift from one economic model to another, in which all people of good will – people of all faiths and none – can come together in movements like OWS and OLSX to help subvert those “established opinions” – opinions which have been a mask for the re-feudalization and enserfment of the many, to the benefit and massive enrichment of the few.
In my view, Rowan has done a great deal, given the constraints he’s acting under (see Howard Reed’s comment), but he could do more, and I believe he will, especially given the implicit recent support from the Vatican, which he mentions in his article. But if the 99% bad-mouth each other and squabble over the few scrpas tossed to us by the puppet-masters (as we have since the start of the Thatcher-Reagan hegemony), they’ll once again simply escape, laughing all the way to their “tax haven” bank.
I agree – this is a big step forward by Rowan
But it has to go further – as Catholic social teaching makes clear
I sincerely hope it will
He takes his time to speak, but I think that Rowan actually is pretty well on the money.
Putting banks back to being the servants of the public rather than slave traders would be a pretty good start, and in that context the whole question of aggressive tax avoidance can be questioned on ethical grounds, rather than justified by profits generated. Of course the devil is in the detail, but then you wouldn’t want a fiscal ignoramus like me jumping all over this.
(One small point, though: not all bankers are the same, any more than all accountants spend all day dreaming up tax dodges 🙂 )
Rm is an accountant so I’m sure he will agree
You forget legal firms who come up with tax dodges and hide behind lpp though
I think it’s a good intervention by Rowan, although it would have been better if he’d entered the debate slightly earlier. But the thing with the C of E is that it is this kind of uneasy coalition between conservatives and radicals – always has been – and one of the difficulties Rowan has is trying to straddle that.
The Vatican issuing statements on financial matters is really funny, ironic and hypochrical all at the same time. Has everyone forgotten the financial scandals over centruries ? Any quick google search will provide you with all the history you need.
The church welcomes sinners
And recognises every one of its members is one
It’s a paradox it can live with
Why can’t you live with the paradox of being acceptable in your unacceptability?
That’s described as the courage to be by Paul Tillich