Arts & Ammo

Eradicating Poverty

Anglican bishops, currently meeting at the decennial Lambeth Conference, have taken to the streets to march against poverty. Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown joined them and had this to say:

This has been one of the greatest public demonstrations of faith that this great city has ever seen. You have sent a symbol, a very clear message with rising force that poverty can be eradicated, poverty must be eradicated and if we all work together for change poverty will be eradicated.

One might think that with so many bishops present, somebody would have reminded the PM that Jesus said otherwise. But then the Anglican bishops have not been particularly troubled by such details lately. So many of them are willing to swim against the tide of procreative nature, it may appear a comparatively simple matter to remake the laws of economics.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said, “[O]ur faith challenges us to eradicate poverty, and not merely to reduce it.” St. Francis, call your office.

The liberals’ view that we have nothing to learn from history and that no wisdom resides in our culture and traditions leaves them in a state of perpetual experimentation – and frequently in a state of surprise or denial when their experiments lead to the same results obtained in the past. First and foremost, they must do something, even if the something is demonstrably wrong. Their faith is in their own power to change; they put their hope in audacity.

I have nothing against the Church taking positions on issues of public importance. The Church has much to contribute, especially when it brings to the discussion its vast scholarship and experience dealing with persistent aspects of the human condition. But surely that corpus of knowledge, had the bishops consulted it, would have argued against joining with Labour leaders in a march against poverty with the attendant message that some new legislation can accomplish the deed. (But then surely that same corpus of knowledge would have argued also against joining with gay rights activists to modify the sacraments.)

Of course, the bishops will be criticized either way – for ignoring a problem or for meddling in it. Cranmer commends them for taking a break from gender issues.

Of course most of these bishops are Socialists, with a commitment to wealth distribution because it is the rich getting richer who make the poor poorer. But there will be no placards ‘calling for free markets, free trade and better protection of private property’ until there is a dialogue between the Church and the Conservative Party which can bring enlightenment to Their Graces. It is not that no bishops harbour secret leanings to the right; it is that no-one from the right bothers to talk to them or convincingly reassure them that there is no shame in supporting a Conservative worldview.

I question the bishops’ march because I think the Church has a better understanding of poverty than the government does, and the Church squanders its position in advocating a political solution. And it squanders its authority when it argues on subjects like political economics on which it has no particular expertise. The Archbishop’s remarks predictably focus on the “gulf” between rich and poor. But that is not the definition of poverty. It is merely a justification for the easy task of making the rich less rich, even though that has never resulted in making the poor less poor. Liberalism offers the convenient solution of allowing the middle class to give someone else’s money to the poor – to give without sacrifice and feel good about it.

The Church on the other hand works through benevolence, not coercion. It calls on us to share our material wealth, but it understands poverty also as a dearth of intellectual and spiritual capital. The Church accomplishes far more by building hospitals and schools (and, yes, cathedrals) than by marching to buck up what the Archbishop calls the “global political will.”

July 29th, 2008 Posted by Fitzroy | Politics, Religion | no comments