in the seventh century effectively fossilised this division but, from the 1960s, these Churches began a process of rapprochement with both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Today the the Christological quar- rels have been overcome, and nearly all the pre-Chalcedonian Churches recognise them- selves to be in communion of faith, at least in this area, with Rome and Constantinople. This led to a signing of the “Common
Declarations of Faith” on the nature of the Incarnate Word by Pope John Paul II and the Syrian, Coptic and Armenian Orthodox Churches. However, in terms of faith, it is not quite true to say that nothing separates or distin- guishes them, for, beyond the Christological splits of the early centuries, division led to further areas of doctrinal divergence, each Church having followed its route apart from the others and not having subscribed to the new dogmas proclaimed by Councils following the break of unity. Today, modern crises and contemporary
ecumenism are beginning to bring down bar- riers. There have been agreements between these Churches that allow partial mutual par- ticipation in sacraments, formation of future priests and catechesis. While powerful, global ecumenical trends have influenced these reforms, so has large-scale emigration from the Middle East to Europe, the Americas and Australia.
Although this large-scale migration has had a negative impact on the life of the indige- nous Christian Churches in the Middle East, there have at least been two good conse- quences: emigration to Western countries provided the possibility of publication without censorship, and brought the existence of these non-Chalcedonian Churches more into the awareness of the Western ones, thus providing an opportunity and incentive for theological dialogue. Other reasons for optimism are the Coptic revival and renaissance, the increasing participation of the laity, monastic renewal and fervent piety.
But there are also profound anxieties for
Christians in the Middle East: the impact of a reawakening of a militant Islam, and grow- ing political marginalisation in modern nation states with complex and often exclusive national identities – Iranian, Israeli, Arab and Turkish.
hypothetical social advance of the group. More urbanised and educated, and more open to the Western world, many Christians in the East enjoy a much higher social position than most Muslims. Their birth rate has dropped considerably at the very point where the Muslim birth rate is increasing and, given migration, the Christian communities have inevitably lost many of their most educated and younger members. The Churches thus not only lose part of their future but also the potential leadership that should be charting (Continued on page 12.)
P
art of the cause is a particular outlook of Middle East Christians. They often choose individual success for their children, rather than hoping for the
CLIFFORD LONGLEY
‘The present economic debate is based in the flawed anthropology of homo economicus’
There is a row going on in another room. We can hear raised voices and the sound of broken crockery, and we catch an angry phrase or two. “Deficit denier!” shouts one. “Growth denier!” screams back another. But the quarrel we know so little about is actually so serious that we shouldn’t be able to sleep at night. Switching off is understandable.
In the fierce economic debate between the Chancellor, George Osborne, and his Labour Shadow, Ed Balls, both use economists’ jargon. They do not present each other, nor us, with clear moral choices. They are discussing the state of the nation as if they were mechanics leaning over a car engine. We have no way of assessing who is right except through trial and error – to start up the car and rev the engine. But with the national economy, this is an unrepeatable experiment. We can’t run two British economies side by side to see what works best. Yet trying to apply moral reasoning to economic decision- making, so we can all take principled sides in the argument, is beset with traps. What its critics called “handbag economics”, for instance, tries to reduce national budgeting to household scale so mere mortals can understand it. If we personally are spending more than we are earning, say the handbaggists, it is obvious we must spend less and if possible earn more. Applied to governments, that
virtuously thrifty approach means cutting public expenditure and raising taxes. That is where Mr Osborne stands; and he offers to do it, knowing it will be painful, but as fairly as possible. Mr Balls points out, however, that the national economic machine needs money to circulate. With less money going around – which Mr Osborne’s higher taxes, public-spending cuts and consequent unemployment will achieve – the engine will eventually stop. GDP will start to fall – as it just has. So the easy moral answer is in fact the more dangerous one, rather as in the days when they applied leeches to patients with pneumonia, thereby speeding their demise. Mr Osborne replies that his cuts
will ultimately put money back into the economy, because with the public sector taking less of a share of available resources, the private sector can take more. As taxes fall and redundant public-sector workers come into the labour market, the sector will inevitably expand, creating new wealth. This is the theory of “squeezing” – that a larger public sector automatically reduces the size of the private sector; and vice versa. As a hypothesis, it is unproven. The Government has recently come under attack for having no strategy for “growth”. But this is precisely that: unsqueeze the private sector (by squeezing the public one) and it will grow. In so far as government policy has a role, it is to remove obstacles to growth and reduce taxes so that businessmen can make bigger profits. At this level, Mr Osborne is relying on the dynamics of laissez-faire economics to assert themselves. And because laissez-faire economics says that market forces are always more efficient than the public sector, the country becomes more productive as it gets richer. This is the real moral dimension to the present economic debate, because laissez-faire economics contains one fundamental moral fallacy. It is based in the flawed anthropology of homo economicus – that human beings are hard-wired to pursue their own individual economic interests. It enshrines Adam Smith’s proposition that “it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest”. On the contrary, real life tells us that it is not the fear of the bailiff that gets brewers and butchers out of bed in the morning, but pride in a job well done. It is the satisfaction of giving service to others, making a contribution to society, being creative, answering the call of duty, cooperating and making friends with people of like mind. This is the territory explored by Catholic Social Teaching, especially Pope Benedict’s 2009 social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. It points out that human beings are hard-wired, if anything, to be social animals. Their own well-being depends on the well-being of the group – of the community they belong to, whether family, firm, tribe, neighbourhood or country. Indeed, it depends on the common good. So squeezing the resources that lead to group well-being does nothing to enhance personal well-being. Instead it is diminished. Does Mr Osborne understand this? Indeed, does Mr Balls?
5 February 2011 | THE TABLET | 7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44