The new Archbishop of Canterbury should represent everyone, including the bankers he has castigated
Dominic Griffiths, banking partner, Mayer Brown
As lawyers sat down to lunch on Remembrance Sunday did the conversation drift into debate over the new Archbishop of Canterbury-designate? Does anyone really care about the background or suitability of Justin Welby, the man chosen to lead the Anglican church?
Welby will be the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury following enthronement next March. You could be forgiven for assuming that the appointment means a lot less to our nation than in the times of his predecessors. This appointment is, however, important, and those who work in or depend on the City for their livelihood should take particular note.
Welby, a law and economic history graduate, worked for an oil company in France before finding his calling, initiated by the tragic death of his young daughter. His apprenticeship in the ways of evangelical righteousness was offered by Holy Trinity Brompton (HTB), that bastion of uncompromising Christianity made popular in the 1980s when born-again Christians were all the rage. HTB now boasts a thriving community of enthusiastic supporters and fundraisers, many of whom are City professionals looking for a deeper meaning to their lives. They fill churches, serving up a compelling cocktail of rock music, speaking in tongues and faith healing. Justin Welby has carried this radical influence into his other parish and diocesan appointments.
Prime Minister David Cameron recommended the appointment to the Queen after being delivered a shortlist by the Crown Nominations Commission. The choice looks astute - an archbishop who can boost a dwindling Anglican congregation and a man who is respected by the troublesome African wing of the church. That wing, like their fellow evangelicals at HTB, take a literal interpretation of the scriptures and, like Welby, oppose gay marriage - an issue that threatens to split the Church.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is still an influential figure, not least because when he speaks on a political or moral issue his views become front-page news. While Welby will avoid expressing strong views on homosexuality and has already toned down the evangelical rhetoric - unpopular with liberal and Anglo-Catholic factions - he will not be shy in attacking bankers and the ‘evils’ of capitalism. He has already used his position on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards as a conduit for populist condemnation.
He is outspoken on the sins of bankers and has suggested that if banks do not fulfil a social purpose they should be forced to do so. Many have congratulated the PM for appointing a man who understands finance and the City, but does an oil executive role in Paris and a couple of inner-city parish appointments qualify him for such an accolade? Does Welby appreciate the important role the City and the banks play in society or what really caused the recession?
More importantly, does Welby know or care what will lead to increased prosperity and higher standards of living? Surely, an archbishop’s role in the modern world is to be a spiritual leader and guide, to reach out to and represent all factions of society. That should include bankers.
Readers' comments (12)
Shame on you. Jesus accepted the tax collectors because they needed healing and the church will divide regardless who is the new leader. This may be the first positive step the church has taken to save itself and it's teaching of the Bible in a long time.
The writer asks whether Bishop Welby's experience qualifies him to opine on finance and the City, but what qualifies the writer to opine on theology? It isn't his grasp of the subject matter given his obvious misunderstanding of evangelical theology. Taken to its logical conclusion, his position is that the Archbishop of Canterbury (who apparently must represent everybody) may not take a view on any matter whatsoever or criticise anyone......if he did then one must conclude that he is not 'representing everybody', which seems fairly absurd.
"Leopard must ditch its spots to blend in with the crowd". "Christian must dicth his religion so that non-Christians do not feel threatened". "Mo Farah should run backwards so that others do not feel inadequate". Etc ...
Agree with the previous posters. What a load of claptrap! This is clearly a vanity piece that Mr Griffiths has written with the intention of sending to all his clients so that he is fighting their corner against all those who do not believe in the Gospel according to Gordon Gekko.
You're wrong. The Church of England is by law established, so the people - all of the people (even homosexuals) - are its people. So, actually, in this sense (and this is axiomatic),the Church of England must represent everybody.
This, presumably, is why someone decided it might be defensible to let Durham keep his free seat in the Lords.
No-one (I know) is saying that means he can't have views, just that given his exalted position, we're entitled to expect them to be informed, nuanced.
We live in hope more than expectation.
Excellent article. The Lawyer should do more of this. Whether or not one agrees with Mr Griffiths, the profession should take an interest in this new appointement and how it relates to the City.
As a non-Anglican I'm startled to hear that the Church of England represents me - I'd rather it didn't.....that sort of tortuous legal reasoning could land a client in trouble. As for it being an excellent article, it simply gives the impression that lawyers are in thrall to their clients. An excellent article might be one in The Lawyer where a lawyer exercises independent judgment and criticises the banks, but that won't happen in a journal like The Lawyer for obvious reasons - the influence of the banks and the need for most law firms (including mine) to keep them onside.
I have no idea how this sort of article has anything to do with the provision of legal services. Of course the author is entitled to any view at all on Justin Welby, or Holy Trinity Brompton. He is entitled to publish them. But it's an error of judgment for this kind of cynical invective to be published in a trade magazine.
I respect the previous comment but I disagree. There is room for an op-ed piece in a trade magazine. Whether this is good quality op-ed is a different question, on which I expect to agree with Confused in Temple!
i didn't understand the article, but I'm not that sharp. just reckon Confused in Temple should get out for a few beers and lighten up.