The Children’s Society should spare us the sanctimony and wash Welby’s money clean
The subject of tainted money has broken out on to the public stage once again. Not long ago the then Archbishop Justin Welby had become convinced that the historic funds of the Church of England had been irreparably corrupted by association with investments in slavery, and that he needed to give them away as reparations The post The Children’s Society should spare us the sanctimony and wash Welby’s money clean first appeared on Catholic Herald. The post The Children’s Society should spare us the sanctimony and wash Welby’s money clean appeared first on Catholic Herald.
The subject of tainted money has broken out on to the public stage once again.
Not long ago the then Archbishop Justin Welby had become convinced that the historic funds of the Church of England had been irreparably corrupted by association with investments in slavery, and that he needed to give them away as reparations to the distant descendants of the original slaves. It turned out that historically he had been mistaken, but such was the anxiety caused that this just might have been true, even though it wasn’t, nothing could shift the fear of taint and change his mind.
Suddenly, during the last week, the subject is back in the news. But the boot now lies on the other foot. Having been the discerner of financial corruption by association, Mr Welby, now an ex-archbishop, has been denounced as the source of corruption by association. And his money is no longer acceptable.
Mr Welby has made a Christmas charitable gift. But, in the eyes of the chief executive of the Church of England’s Childrens’ Society, to which the gift was made, his moral turpitude appears so deep and contagious that the money given by Mr and Mrs Welby has been refused, and sent back.
All this took place through the medium of the evangelical annual round robin e-Christmas card, the last sent from the Lambeth Palace internet server by Mr Welby, in which he publicly announced that he had made a personal Christmas donation to the Children’s Society and invited others to do the same.
His subsequent humiliation has raised the question of whether it is wise to advertise one’s charitable personal giving.
People have different views. Some see it as a way of doing something charitable and setting a personal example, giving a lead to stimulate Christmas generosity towards charities; others feel it falls foul of Jesus’s warning against advertising our generosity in public. Both views seem entirely capable of being held. Perhaps the kind of person you are dictates the conclusion you come to.
But back to the deeper ethical puzzle. In his Christmas email card last Wednesday, Mr Welby and his wife wrote: “This year, we have chosen to make a donation to The Children’s Society, which empowers young people by tackling the adverse conditions that prevent them from flourishing.”
A rather strange and unexpected riposte followed when on Friday, the organisation’s chief executive, Mark Russell announced: “After careful consideration, we have respectfully decided not to accept the donation offered by the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury.
“The Children’s Society is deeply committed to supporting the survivors of abuse, our teams support victims of child sexual abuse, and this means that accepting this donation would not be consistent with the principles and values that underpin our work.”
“Not consistent with our principles” is of course the kind of language that some organisations give when they are explaining why Christians cannot be employed or must be sacked. It is now tragically (and provocatively) being used by one part of the Christian community against another.
This began an excited and energised public debate. The Church Times gathered together some Anglican responses to this.
Martin Sewell, a member of the General Synod and a retired lawyer, wrote that, while he had called for Mr Welby to resign, “his Christian charity should not be treated as tainted”.
The Revd Liam Beadle asked: “Who is helped by this aggressive virtue-signalling? Not the children who are meant to be helped by the Children’s Society.”
The Revd Dr Andy Bawtree, wrote: “Rather petty from Mark Russell — are all donations vetted for taint?”
This last question seems to be worth asking the Society and when someone asked whether donors were routinely screened, a spokesperson for the Children’s Society said: “It’s not about the individual or the institution but rather about making sure that the contribution supports the work we do in a way that is consistent with our principles.”
One explanation for this might be political. It is of course only the political Left who practice guilt by association. This relatively new association by guilt and taint has only recently spread from politics to spirituality. Perhaps in part because of the politicisation of spirituality.
But might there be a more metaphysical impulse?
Is there perhaps also a rationale that derives as a form of parody of the power of relics? A dark inversion of the capacity of matter to act as a conduit of moral goodness, or in this case, corruption? Incorrupt bodies, and the healing power of saint’s relics have created an awareness of the connection of shared moral virtue carried by matter. Is the notion of tainted money a parody of that experience of virtue? A morally infused superstitious fear of taint embedded in and carried by a corrupt person’s money?
Some years ago Fr Michel Quoist the French priest poet, confronted the dark question of whether money carried moral taint?
In his ‘Prayer before a five pound note’ he reflected on the neutrality of money. Every transaction, every piece of paper currency could be used and was used for good or ill.
“Through how many hands has it passed, Lord?
And what has it done in the course of its long, silent journeys?
It has offered white roses to the radiant fiancée.
It has paid for the baptismal party, and fed the rosy-cheeked baby.
It has provided bread for the family table.
Because of it there was laughing among the young and joy among its elders.
It has paid for the saving visit of the doctor,
It has brought the book that taught the youngster.
It has clothed the young girl.
But it has sent the letter breaking the engagement,
It has paid for the death of the baby in its mother’s womb,
It has brought the liquor that made the drunkard,
It has produced the movie unfit for children, and has recorded the indecent song.
It has bought for a few hours the body of a woman,
It has paid for the weapons of the crime and for the wood of the coffin.”
His conclusion mirrored the prayers of the Rosary and it mysteries.
“O Lord, I offer you this note with its joyous mysteries, its sorrowful mysteries.
I thank you for the life and joy it has given.
I ask forgiveness for the harm it has done.
But above all, Lord,
I offer it to you as a symbol of all the labours of men, indestructible money, which tomorrow will be changed into your eternal life.”
If Fr Quoist is right, and money does not carry either virtue or taint deriving from the use it was put to, then the Children’s Society was mistaken to refuse Mr Welby’s gift, and perhaps its desire to shame the ex-archbishop by virtue-signalling in public may have been as ethically problematic as the inaction he was accused of when faced with safeguarding accusations.
But the principle of this will worry many people, not just because there are few of us who are so virtuous that our charitable giving would pass intense scrutiny.
I receive a relatively small sum of money as an ex Anglican parson from the Church of England as a pension. I would be much affected by a conclusion that because, either due to immoral investments, or, because of the turpitude of a CEO/archbishop, all such money is corrupt and corrupting.
If that proved to be the case I would need to follow the example of the scrupulously morally sensitive chief executive of the Children’s Society and return the sum given as a pension, however small and modest, whence it came.
I am much inclined to he theological and ethical wisdom of Fr Michel Quoist rather than Mark Russell, as it happens. Which in my case is as lucky as it is convenient.
(CNS photo)
The post The Children’s Society should spare us the sanctimony and wash Welby’s money clean first appeared on Catholic Herald.
The post The Children’s Society should spare us the sanctimony and wash Welby’s money clean appeared first on Catholic Herald.