The church and The Big Society (Part 3): Love it or hate it, The Big Society is penance for all our sins
Friday, February 25, 2011 at 2:38PM When the idea of The Big Society was first born and promoted it was during a time of economic prosperity, so it cannot be accused of simply being a rouse to cover the damage of the government's spending cuts. In fact in its early years of development the current government promised to match the previous government's level of spending. But here we are today, witnessing brutal funding cuts in every sector of welfare provision. The importance of The Big Society (and the concepts of The Good Society) are therefore greater than ever.
Let me make the scope of the deficit clear. Our country faces a debt burden of over £1 trillion so there are no more coffers in the tin to pay for the services that we used to pay for. These cuts are not ideological, they are simply unavoidable. Those fighting against these cuts (usually in the name of “the poor”) forget very quickly that much of the money used to pay for our old levels of welfare was not ours. The UK was not earning enough money to pay for them so it was borrowing from China, India, and the Middle East. Poorer countrys which had inadequate public service infrastructures themselves, and an enormous inequality of wealth, were funding our demands for a public sector leviathan. Whilst the poor were funding the rich I did not hear the left or the right, or the church, calling this asymmetrical relationship to account. Oh, and by the way, that £1 trillion we owe today, is owed to poor countrys who have propped up our economy. Not out of love, but in fear that if we have no money to purchase their exports, they will go bust as well.
But it is not just the irresponsible politicians who are to blame, the proverbial “rich bankers” are also taking a lot of heat for causing the crises - and it is well deserved. We rightly blame them for their high risk investments and their easy credit to the poor. But there is a third guilty party little talked about as it makes us uncomfortable – ourselves. Politicians and bankers didn't do this alone, all of us who are in debt (including the poor), who paid too much for our houses, who borrowed too much for our cars and holidays abroad, who enjoyed the fruit of our credit cards, stand guilty of crunching the cogs in the great credit machine.
So my question is, where were the Christian leaders prophetically calling this lending culture to account? Where indeed was I? St. Paul's lament that “all men are sinners of who I am the worst” comes to mind. For years we self-righteously demanded that our politicians keep spending, soothing our rational senses that we were creating a more equal society, but now the gap between rich a poor will increase at speed. Rather than taxing us we allowed them to lighten up on banking regulation, creating easy money and a blind eye to risk. As individuals we took the credit that the banks were offering, thanking them heartily for our new kitchens and expensive engagement rings. And now the bubble has burst and we are all paying the price - and yes the poor the hardest. We will now have the welfare state we deserve, with higher taxes, reduced job security, and a colossal debt burden for our children to repay. Rich and poor alike we sowed the wind and now we are reaping the whirlwind.
The reason why such concepts as The Big Society and The Good Society are important is because it gives us all an opportunity to try and restore some of what has been lost. At its core, The Big Society is not about ideology, or government targets on poverty reduction, it's about the individual and small group rolling up their sleeves to help their neighbours. Its an attempt to galvanise a national grass roots movement of neighbourly responsibility. Those who are criticising the cuts by slinging mud at The Big Society (as if they are linked ideologically rather than circumstantially) are simply unwilling for this country to take responsibility for its behaviour. Poorer countrys will only prop-up our economy for so long. If we continue to borrow, to avoid the cuts, they may decide that the risks of lending to us are too great and the tap will be shut off. Then we will go the way of Iceland, Greece, and Ireland.
The church often finds itself in a position where it has to challenge the corruption that power can bring, and economic power must be no exception. It is perverse that rich countrys are being funded by poorer ones, and perverse for it to continue if we can stop it. No politicians will articulate the cuts in terms of repentance, they will try to sweeten the pill with management speak offering more for less. Nevertheless we must accept that the cuts are of our own making, and The Big Society offers us some penance. We may not be able to rely on the state to provide us with as much care as we are used to, so now we must rely on each other. The Big Society offers this, and Christians are unwise to sling mud at it. Love it or hate it, The Big Society is penance for all our sins.
See also part 1 and part 2 of this series.
Reader Comments (3)
Some of this of course depends on what The Big Society is, which is confusing as it appears members of the Government think of it differently, even before you get to those outside. Whilst people like Phillip Blond definately see it as distinct from cuts, others (such as a Tory councillor in Bradford whose bog I came across) see it as an idealogical excuse to stop funding public services such as Libraries which they see as the realm of private sector.
If The Big Society seems to also about getting people involved in community then is penance a negative view of what we should be ideally be happy to do anyway? And as Christians an extension of being salt and light in the places we live.
Should Christians have criticised more in the past? Probably, although there were some groups were were calling the financial sector to account. Whilst personal borrowing may have played a part, much responsibility still goes to the banks who should have known what they were doing, and as we don't fully understand we rely on them for guidance. Although some checks are being brought in there is still great reluctance to do anything to bring the banks to account and my fear is that they'll be free to do it all again.
Are cuts the price of our sins? I can see your point, but are the scale of cuts inevitable? Economists disagree (as they usually do) over the scale, and some say that cutting too much makes things worse. The issue is also about fairness. That is particulalrly topical given Barclays ability to get out of paying much of it's tax bill (following in the footsteps of Philip Green and Vodaphone). And decisions which have been made under the labels of cuts or reforms (including NHS) are as much for political reasons as for economic.
Hi RockBadger, Thanks for your post.
I agree that there appears to be some confusion regarding how the individual government departments are interpreting The Big Society (TBS) , however this is in some way quite understandable (and it would be over-blown to suggest any sort of disarray). TBS cuts across all sectors of society and government departments deal with a very broad set of issues. I am unsurprised then, that they are contextualising TBS in different ways according to the needs they are directly facing. This flexibility is really what TBS (and small “c” conservatism is all about) not perfect ideological consistency, but a pragmatic application of core values. We will have to see how TBS evolves. I would imagine some departments will be more successful than others, but as long as lessons are learnt it will hopefully be successful across the board. I guess the question is, “whilst TBS is broad in vision, can it be as broad in delivery?” I take your point that some Conservatives do link TBS and the cuts ideologically, but quoting the odd councillor is not really representative of what TBS is all about. Certainly the architects like Blonde, Montgomerie, IDS, Maude, and Cameron do not think so.
You point out:
“If The Big Society seems to also about getting people involved in community then is penance a negative view of what we should be ideally be happy to do anyway? And as Christians an extension of being salt and light in the places we live.”
I think you have made a fair criticism, however I suppose that I was not meaning it for Christians who should take penance joyfully as an act of reconciliation with God, but the average person reconciling themselves to society. Yes it should be joyful, but do we really think it will be? My experience of a colossal welfare state is that it creates an “am I my bothers keeper? ” culture particularly amongst deprived community's who need each other the most. Breaking this welfare addiction cold turkey will be a pretty painful penance, - but you're quite right that it really should be joyful (the church could be an example here). Unfortunately some on the Christian left, particularly the post-Christendom left, are slinging mud at it. I am quite convinced that their problem though is not that it is a bad idea, but simply because it is a Conservative party idea – they will no doubt claim plausible deniabilility however.
Certainly TBS is not a replacement for the great commission, and the great commission should not be in service to it. The state does not legitimise the church only God does that and as soon as TBS begins to try and shape its identity and mission then the church must pull out. The churches role is not to bless or sanctify TBS, simply to welcome it as a good idea if that is what it is. The church is not another local government department, it is a counter culture. It is not meant to be deliberately subversive, rather St. Paul advocates good citizenship, and supporting TBS is following this through. However The church seeks God's agenda not the agenda of the powers be they state or market. These powers can get very uncomfortable and kick out at the church when it refuses to bend its agenda. So I see the church welcoming TBS but not unconditionally.
I entirely agree with you that the cuts must be about as fair as we can make them, but they never will be truly fair. It is always the vulnerable that are hit the hardest. I am just a poor police officer and I realise that the rich bankers will be getting a far better end of the deal than my family. I am no anti-capitalist, but one of the great floors in our economic system (indeed any system ever thought up) is that (regardless of what an ideology might say of itself) it looks after the wealthy and privileged first, indeed its success depends on this. That is why the banks get such a good deal despite the blame they are getting – they need it to keep things going. And lets be fair, things are better than they were 100 years ago in terms of western lifestyles. Change cannot happen overnight, and this means that the church will always have something to justifiably criticise. I think that it doesn't criticise enough as it is terrified of being labelled socialist (and I am no socialist). Alistair Darling wanted to cut almost as fast and as deep as George Osbourne has. Whilst their figures may be slightly different, to those of us who are not sure to which closest £billion we should cut – and I count myself among these folk – it feels a bit like an argument about how many angles can stand on the head of a pin. Nevertheless, (and I want to avoid getting to baulked down in economic detail) the most important success has been retaining Britain's AAA* Standards & Poor credit rating as any less and we will look too risky to lend too. The international credit agency’s, as well as the IMF have been clear, we have a more secure future because we have taken some hard (and often unfair decisions). Without these cuts our economy really would have been stuffed and everyone would be bankrupt because a poor credit rating makes us too risky to lend to or attract vital foreign direct investment. Our credit rating required a big blade not a scalpel. So my point is, because it will never be truly fair, TBS must step in and take much of the weight and the church can lead the charge of what is possible.
The variety of interpretations of The Big Society is interesting, and it is certainly fairly fluid. That can be good, and we shouldn’t be afraid of wide definitions that in incorporate diverse practices. However I do wonder if Cameron & co have effectively communicated it, whether they even intend to, and without a clear idea the majority of the public won’t buy in. And for many their connection to TBS is when their Library has staff removed and they are told to find volunteers or it closes so getting them to think of it as anything but negative could be a challenge.
All for the Church being subversive and counter cultural (service tonight all about Dead Poets Society!). Reading the CofE’s report on The Big Society (more interesting and readable than it sounds) it made the point about in the 1980s many saw the Anglican Church as being the most effective critic to the Conservative Government. I agree that we need to walk the line holding in tension support for what is good in TBS whilst not being afraid to criticise when necessary.
A lot is probably terminology, vocabulary, and marrying up what the Church does with what politicians come up with as the definition of TBS (without making it exclusive for when TBS is no longer flavour of the month). The Church gets on and does a lot of work already, but it probably needs to couch it in the right terms and ensure people know about it (and maybe be inspiried to new things too). Whether it is taken due notice of is another matter. That was a frustration for many under the Labour Government, with John Sentamu making a big attack on the Government for sidelining Christian groups and charities and organisations who were doing great work with people, not recognising the value of what they did and in some cases putting them at a disadvantage.