Urban Change

Date Added: Friday 30th June 2006

I once asked a friend why he liked living in Manchester. I loved his evocative response: 'I love the voyeurism of cities. A well-positioned window seat in a high street tea room, a bus in a traffic jam, a crowded lunch-time pub. I love the sights and sounds and smells. All-day breakfasts, the shriek of news vendors, con-merchants in disused shop-fronts, mums pulling children on elasticated leads. Secret rivers and lost canals glimpsed from the top deck of clanking double-deckers; the smell of diesel and trains, the waft of beer and nicotine; pavement cafes and honking cabs, shambling drunks with purple faces. And the impatience of it all - the briskness, the busyness, the skilful feet; the back street quiet, the Saturday bedlam and the sudden sense of loneliness. And the incongruity: a family of orthodox Jews in the Body Shop, a stray dog staring in BHS's window, a nun in HMV. And at night, the lights. It's a rendition of life with all the errors left in, the director's cut, the unrehearsed shambles, the first read-through - a daily brainstorm of action and colour.'

The Commission on Urban Life and Faith has just published its excellent report, Faithful Cities (downloadable free). It's, 'about the places we live and the way our lives are changing'. Not all of us live in urban areas, of course, but even those who don't are radically affected by them. Faithful Cities reflects on the heady mix of complex human life hinted at by my friend in his reflection on Manchester. It combines and interweaves stories, analysis and practical theology in a colourful, entertaining and inspiring format.

The report traces the changes that have taken place in urban life since the publication of its forerunner, Faith in the City, some twenty years ago. It maintains that, 'faith is now a more dynamic and significant factor in our cities', and argues that, '…religious faith is one of the richest, most enduring and most dynamic sources of energy and hope for cities.' Another key change is the explosion of a 'diversity of diversities', of which religious diversity is but a part.
To explore Faithful Cities, The Board for Social Responsibility is holding a joint study day with the diocesan Committee for Inter-faith Concerns on October 18th in St Clement's, Oxford. The particular focus will be the overlap between urban and interfaith issues. Keynote speakers will be Guy Wilkinson (Archbishop's Adviser on Interfaith issues) and theologian Ann Morisy, author of Beyond the Good Samaritan. All are welcome. Please email me.

Alison Webster is Social Responsibility Adviser to the Diocese of Oxford

Comments
My attention has been drawn to the extraordinarily intemperate attack on ‘Faithful Cities’ by Tom Benyon in the September Door. I recently wrote a blog saying that the Report had attracted far less controversy than its predecessor ‘Faith in the City’ twenty years ago because there was much more consensus now about the urban scene, but it seems I was wrong! Mr Benyon seems to think that it is absurd for the Commission to address the nation rather than just address itself to the Church, but surely engaging with the society in which we are set is precisely what the Church should be doing. . Many of us feel that an obsession with talking to itself gains the Church no credit in the modern world. In any case the Commission, while it was an initiative of the Church of England, set up by the Archbishops, was not simply representing the Anglican Church, but had members who were Roman Catholic, URC, Methodist and Muslim. Mr Benyon thinks that ‘our leaders’ should address the breakdown of families, uncontrolled immigration and the evils of gambling. He will find the evils of gambling addressed on page 63 of the Report and family breakdown on pages 40-41, because of course these are issues that are part of the urban scene. If he thinks that immigration is uncontrolled then he will plainly come to a different conclusion from the authors of the Report, but he seems not to have noticed that one of the Report’s recommendations is on precisely that subject: ‘The Government must lead rather than follow public opinion on immigration, refugee and asylum policy. Specifically asylum seekers should be allowed to sustain themselves and contribute to society through paid work. It is unacceptable to use destitution as a tool of coercion when dealing with ‘refused’ asylum seekers.’ Quite. On the subject of a ‘living wage’, I’m afraid Mr Benyon gives the Commission credit for far more courage than they in fact possessed; they did not recommend that we should have one, but only that the Government be asked to consider the effects of implementing one, a much more modest proposal. Curiously, though, I recall his argument against a living wage being deployed against the minimum wage ten years ago, and yet that seems to have worked without the dire consequences that were predicted. Mr Benyon exercised about the Archbishop of York’s perceived bad attitude to philanthropy, and I am sure there is a debate to be had here, but I think he is mistaken if he thinks the Church decries the generosity of rich people. Of course everyone applauds the generosity of the likes of John Madejski and Andrew Lloyd Webber (to give two local examples) but there is a Christian case to be made that the possession of great wealth necessarily carries with it social responsibilities, to which philanthropy is in part a response. It is notable that two of his examples are American, as recent research has shown that Americans (particularly wealthy Americans) are much more generous givers to charity than are Britons; personally I am sure that a tax regime much more favourable to individual philanthropy is partly responsible, but I would like to see a real debate. Finally, Mr Benyon asks whether anyone thinks seriously that government can give away money more efficiently than the likes of Bill Gates. Well, yes, actually, because I think government might actually be better informed than individual billionaires. The ‘Faithful Cities’ Report is one attempt to see that government and others are better informed about life in our cities today, and I commend it to readers of The Door.
Henry Everett, Vicar of All Saints, Reading and Member of the Diocesan Urban Priority Action Group	6th October 2006

I was sad to read the letter by Tom Benyon (Letters, September) against the Faithful Capital report. Surely it must shame all Christians that such a gap between rich and poor exists in this country. Wealth creators are to be admired, particularly the few who give to charity, but as a wealthy nation we should all be prepared to pay taxes to help those less fortunate than ourselves. Indeed I have heard the former Bishop of Oxford, Lord Harries tell us so and I know that many Christians would agree.
Catherine Giles, Witney Oxon	29th September 2006

It is a pity the authors of Faithful Capital report (from the Commission on Urban Life and Faith, Comment, Door July/August) seek to preach at the vast majority of those living in the UK who are not Christian. I can never understand why the Church wasted its time hoping people will act in a Christian way, when it appears they have no intention of bending the knee. I presume our leaders believe they have a prophetic message but if that is so, it is a pity they failed to discuss inter alia, the breakdown of families; uncontrolled immigration and the evils of gambling. They regard wealth creation with distaste – and little understanding – the report smacks of Old Labour with pious tinges: higher taxes: the lesson that we cannot make poor people richer, by making rich people poorer has yet to be understood by the C of E. Faithful Cities was launched with an ill judged attack by the Archbishop of York on David Beckham who has enough problems as it is; apparently Beckham paid £50K for a dinner party ticket; this was compared with the £250 per week pay of a hospital porter. In fact Beckham's dinner-ticket was a donation to charity. Surely Beckham's charitable instincts, along with those of Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and UK's Andrew Lloyd Webber who have all recently given prodigious sums to charity should be widely applauded not condemned. Why does the church appear to think that money that belongs to the state is ‘good’ whilst private capital is ‘bad’? Unless the risk takers can accumulate how can they give it away? And does anyone think seriously that government can give away money more efficiently than the likes of Bill Gates? The report inveighs against the gap between rich and poor and tells readers that it is greater in the UK than the EC; but unemployment is roughly double in the EC zone than the UK because of their egregious welfare costs. As employment costs are far lower in the UK we attract more jobs and wealth creators. Raise taxes, and wealthy creators will vanish to lower taxation areas. So if we run our business affairs as they do in the EC our unemployment levels might well rise to theirs so the church cannot have it both ways. Lastly, there is a recommendation that we should have a “living wage” instead of a minimum wage. We live in a global economy; all that would happen if such a device were to be introduced is the opposite to that intended: Jobs would be exported to countries who do not have such luxuries.
Tom Benyon, A representative of the Diocese of Oxford on General Synod	30th August 2006

Leave your comments on this item More website comments