Justin Welby
The quickest way to ruin a dinner party is to talk about the
Christian belief in an after-life. ‘Heaven? It’s just a fantasy cooked up by
clergy to keep themselves in a job,’ a typical metropolitan hostess might say,
her lip curling as she spoons out the asparagus soufflé.
To which I can only reply: in 20 years
of covering religious affairs as a journalist, I have almost never heard vicars
or priests talk about heaven – except from the narrow confines of the pulpit,
and even then not very often.
But I certainly hear clergy talk
incessantly about another fantasy world. It’s a Britain in which they talk
about the ‘gulf between rich and poor’.
This always seems to be a nicely flexible concept that they never precisely define. Above all, it is always ‘widening’ and they argue that society’s ills can be miraculously solved if only more taxpayers’ money was spent on them as if it was holy water.
This week, they are it again with a
book that deliberately echoes the infamous ‘Faith In The City’ report published
by the Church of England in 1985 when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister.
It controversially called for greater
government spending in every conceivable area (except on the country’s military
defences, of course) and was denounced by one Thatcherite minister as
‘Marxist’.
Such criticism was, I believe, over the
top – but make no mistake: the truth is that the Church of England tried to
strangle the Thatcherite reforms that turned Britain into the economic capital
of Europe.
The Church failed in it efforts – and
it seems that Archbishop Sentamu is still very bitter.
In his new book, he says he is sorry
that the Church lost its nerve in its response to what he calls the ‘savage
attack’ of Thatcherism.
But he is wrong. The Left-wing bishops
did not lose their nerve: they actually did everything in their power to elect
Labour’s Neil Kinnock as prime minister. And then when that failed, too, they went
into a sulk.
Perhaps the most depressing aspect of
this offensive by the Church of England is the involvement of the Archbishop of
Canterbury. The fact is that some of what he says is patently not true.
Further Reading
No comments:
Post a Comment