Archbishop Welby has delivered himself of views on the economy, proving yet again that the popular description of the Anglican Church must be revised.
It’s no longer the Tory Party at prayer, as it once was. The economic ideas enunciated by His Grace more readily belong on the hard left of Labour. And indeed they do come from the leftie Institute for Public Policy Research.
It’s the same old saw about our economy being unfair because some people are better off than others. Hence class war must be waged until everyone is equally poor, while the state grows mighty and omnipotent.
That’s justice, as understood by Messrs Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Corbyn. Hence if the Archbishop cited such references in support of his notions, he’d only show a poor grasp of economic history, theory and practice.
Alas, he cites Jesus Christ, showing that his understanding of his chosen discipline is as feeble as his grasp of economics, with the added disadvantage of being dishonest. To wit:
“As a Christian I start with learning from Jesus Christ that people matter equally, are equally loved by God, and that justice in society matters deeply – a theme that runs throughout the Bible.”
That theme does run through the Bible, but to interpret it as a call for all people to have equal wealth is ignorance and vulgarity at their most soaring.
Nowhere in the Scripture does Jesus or any of his apostles call for economic egalitarianism. Quite the opposite.
Jesus teaches that “the poor will be with you always”, and he doesn’t seem to mind that state of affairs.
Moreover, he implicitly doesn’t mind wealth either, and his metaphor about the camel and the eye of the needle was merely a polemical riposte against the rabbinical teaching about riches being a reward for righteousness.
Incidentally, Calvin, the major influence on Anglican theology, revived that idea – even though it came from the Jews whom he cordially loathed.
During the time our civilisation was being formed, seeking wealth for those who weren’t heirs to large estates was tantamount to selling the fruits of their labour. The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker bartered their products for other people’s.
Money was sometimes involved as a means of exchange, and when that was the case it was natural to expect that more money would eventually end up in some hands than in others.
Thus labour implicitly presupposes the possibility of enrichment. Yet in spite of that the New Testament contains direct endorsements of work.
These come across in the Lord’s Prayer (“give us this day our daily bread”), in Jesus the carpenter talking about “the labourer worthy of his hire” and in St Paul the tent maker stating categorically that “if any would not work, neither shall he eat.”
Thus being “equally loved by God” doesn’t mean being equally enriched by the state. Nor does it mean that people unable to work because of their age or health shouldn’t eat.
Such cruelty is incompatible with Christian love and therefore justice. But it’s yet another example of congenital leftie mendacity to confuse welfare with the welfare state, and the latter with Christian charity.
Christian charity – especially if offered anonymously – not only helps the taker, but also elevates the giver. It therefore has to be a voluntary act inspired by love.
However, when the modern state talks about helping the less fortunate, it really means ripping off the more fortunate, to make them less independent from the state.
This is done by coercion, which alone disqualifies the welfare state from any claim to Christian antecedents.
Thus Welby’s pronouncement is bad Christianity – and it certainly is rotten economics. The underlining principle comes straight from Corbyn’s book: tax the rich to help the poor.
This stratagem has been tried uncountable times in innumerable countries, and everywhere it has succeeded only in the rich either spending all their time looking for tax shelters or fleeing the country – taking with them their capital and therefore jobs.
As a result, state revenues actually decrease, and Arthur Laffer with his curve showed the inverse relationship between high tax rates and tax income.
Where such cracker-barrel economics has failed miserably and universally is in helping the poor. It merely turns the poor into the idle, while increasing their number no end.
Welby’s ideas have nothing to do with either Christianity or sound economics or for that matter justice.
Justice means getting one’s due, what one deserves. If our economy were run on this principle, much of the population would starve to death – unless you believe that a young, able-bodied man who has never worked a day in his life deserves his keep, complete with the latest electronic kit and designer trainers.
Speaking of fairness, I’d argue that inheritance tax is the most unfair of all. The state re-taxes the money already taxed every which way during a man’s lifetime, thereby reducing his ability to provide for his family.
Yet this is precisely the tax that our seeker of Christian justice wants to jack up, by reducing the threshold of tax-free gifts.
He also wants to bring capitals gain tax and taxes on dividends in line with income tax – which is guaranteed to discourage investment and thrift, while encouraging irresponsible and profligate spending.
His Grace’s bugbear is that “The wealthiest 10 per cent of households own more than 900 times the wealth of the poorest 10 per cent, and five times more than the bottom half of all households combined.”
Justice Welby-style demands that this outrage be stopped. However, elementary honesty would call for mentioning in the next breath that the top 10 per cent also pay 60 per cent of all taxes, and the top one per cent contribute 28 per cent.
Nicky Morgan, chairman of the Commons Treasury committee, welcomes Welby’s ideas: “Our aim should be to make the whole nation wealthier.”
Now Miss Morgan matches the Archbishop’s formidable intellect and economic nous. If that weren’t the case, she’d realise that such socialist measures are guaranteed to make the whole nation not wealthier but poorer.
I wonder if Miss Morgan is an Anglican. If so, she has a perfect spiritual leader.
” a polemical riposte against the rabbinical teaching about riches being a reward for righteousness.”
“Calvin, the major influence on Anglican theology, revived that idea – even though it came from the Jews ”
Correct. The Jews believed it they kept their part of the bargain with GOD he would reward them. “We did our part GOD! Now YOU do YOURS!’
JESUS was the first communist that idea has been around for a long time.
Calvin modified that idea somewhat. Wealth to him wasn’t a reward for righteousness, but God’s message that the righteous man was on the right track – a sign of divine approval. And treating Jesus as the first communist, a sort of Che Guevara of Galilee, betokens ignorance of both Christianity and communism.
And of course John Calvin saw himself on the right track.
We are ruled over by half-educated simpletons as those two cited prove.
Just another desperate attempt by the ecclesiastical politburo to suck up to secularism. Pitiable.