The other Archbishop calls for renewed efforts to end poverty
John Sentamu, Archbishop of York
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has become such an internationally recognized person that he almost needs no introduction. A theologian, poet, and writer of great force and insight, he was a public figure even before being chosen to lead the Anglican Communion. What many Americans might not know is that there are two Archbishops in England.
The “other” Archbishop is John Sentamu, Archbishop of York. Born in Uganda, he’s something of a celebrity in the United Kingdom, where he has a reputation for balancing out the intensely cerebral Williams with a media-friendly, pragmatic style. (Check out the Times Online story on his recent parachute jump!) In the context of the special UN meeting aimed at furthering progress on the Millennium Development Goals, the two archbishops made statements last week condemning the practices of some financial traders and the overall culture of unfettered greed that has taken over much of the West.
Taking a moment to review the statements issued by these leaders can remind an American audience that the economic crisis we’re facing is a global one, and that both the causes and the potential solutions of said crisis may well extend across national borders.
A must-read BBC article highlights the common cause between the two men, and also makes clear how very different they are in rhetorical style and approach. Williams makes potent but nonetheless rather abstract points, such as when he says that “the biggest challenge in the present crisis is whether we can recover some sense of the connection between money and material reality.” Sentamu, meanwhile, grabs headlines by calling “share traders who cashed in on falling prices ‘bank robbers and asset strippers’.”
For all his exuberance, Sentamu makes some salient points that should not be missed. Most of us, for instance, would tend to think that this moment of global economic crisis is the worst possible time to renew calls for an end to poverty. Sentamu points out that the opposite is true; in comparison to a $700 billion bailout plan, the money needed for poverty eradication measures starts looking like peanuts:
The archbishop acknowledged the need for stable financial systems if poverty was to be eradicated, but added: “One of the ironies about this financial crisis is that it makes action on poverty look utterly achievable. It would cost $5bn (£2.7bn) to save six million children’s lives.
“World leaders could find 140 times that amount for the banking system in a week. How can they tell us that action for the poorest is too expensive?”
Of course, as of this afternoon the bailout plan has not passed in the House. But the truth underneath the Archbishop’s question still rings true to me.
To see an earlier statement by Sentamu on the MDGs, read his July column in the Times.
Pamela Dolan is on staff at Emmanuel Episcopal Church in Webster Groves and is a Candidate for Holy Orders. After high school in Hawaii and college in California, she earned a master's degree in theology from Harvard before spending several years in New York studying medieval religion and literature. Pamela is married with two children. 
We have attempted to diminish poverty in Iraq by installing a government that will provide freedom for people to earn a good living. This effort is costing hundreds of billions of dollars. Five billion dollars to save six million kids looks too simplistic.
Good, another call to end poverty. Not a plan, not a blueprint, just a call. Slap a dollar amount on it and it makes news.
This is actually no different than the 700B bailout plan. No information on how that figure is arrived at, how it will be spent, how that money will actually fix the problem, and how much more will be needed down the line. The “devil” is in the details, eh?
No disrespect to these two fine men, but I just can’t believe that commenting on specific investment matters like debt vehicles, short-selling, and trade timing falls within their range of education. If someone actually listens to them then they have done a great disservice because their comments ingore the reality of finance.
Cashing in on falling prices is a sound investment principle, by the way, if you believe the price has fallen below where it should actually be. I guess I am an asset stripper for buying yesterday after the DOW dropped 700+ points because people panicked over a bailout package that deserved to fail anyway. I think it was smart, but to each his own…
I understand the connection they were trying to make, showing the cost for a bailout is much more than saving poor children’s lives (without proof I might add, I stil want details), but I can’t see where this accomplished anything…
Actually, Tim, there is a plan. Go to the United Nations page on the Millennium Development Goals, or to the Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation links, and you can see that. The MDGs are not pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking. They’re a plan, with definable and achievable goals. And $5 billion was not plucked out of the sky randomly but is the number that the UN has estimated it will cost to achieve these goals.
It’s fine to disagree with the plan, or even with the goals they wish to achieve, or even (I guess) with the overall goal of ending poverty. But it bothers me that the specific goals are not being argued on their merits.
A side note: I don’t think the Archbishop was talking about “cashing in on falling prices.” If you bought stock when the market hit bottom the other day, you were wagering that prices will eventually rise. That is sound investing. If I read the Archbishop’s comments correctly, he was railing against short-selling, which wagers that prices will fall. A different matter. Again, of course you’re entitled to disagree. I just wouldn’t paint with too broad a brush here.
The people who have developed this plan and these goals, and the numbers around them, could turn out to be wrong. But we’ll never know if we don’t even try. And the good we do along the way, even if we fall short of the goal, surely matters.
Davel, forgive me if I’m the one being cynical now. But I don’t think that our invasion of Iraq had anything at all to do with a desire to end poverty in that country, and I don’t think there’s a shred of evidence to support that idea. Trust me, I have read the Millennium Development Goals and none of them would require military invasions or occupations. There are other ways to bring about change in the world.