The Gospel & Social Mobility

An interesting couple of programmes on TV last night (2/2/11). Firstly, a BBC2 documentary (‘Who gets the best jobs?’) on social mobility – something that has reduced dramatically in recent decades in the UK. This means that if you are born poor in Britain you are more likely to die poor (i.e. not advance up the social/income scale) than at any time since the 1950s. The transition from free university education, the growing disparity between the incomes of rich & poor, and some would argue the abolition of the grammar school system, have all doubtless contributed. Those with money can buy their off-spring a better education (and thus a springboard to greater prosperity) either directly through private provision or indirectly by being able to afford to live in the right postcodes.

The second programme was a feature on Newsnight – about the ‘super rich’, an international elite whose ties with any geographical community are less & less – i.e. they move globally and have few deep roots in any one place. London was cited as one such staging post – with its African plutocrats, Russian oil magnates and Arab Sheiks. A group increasingly resented by those down below – who see them paying little tax proportionately and having little commitment to the societies they move through.

Depressing stuff on the face of it – a return to a Victorian society with its impenetrable class barriers and glaring social disparity between the workhouse and the stately home. But in the programmes a couple of things struck me. Firstly, regret was expressed that a generation of young people were being denied the possibility to advance in such ways. One politician spoke of his frustration that many young people felt such advancement was beyond them and thus were resigned to staying put socially & income wise. The need, it was argued, was to get such young people climbing the ladder, believing in themselves, advancing into the professions and so on.

Now you certainly wouldn’t want to discourage people from that – but the problem is that such a message can itself become misleading and cruel. Because not everyone can be a doctor or a barrister, (it was noteworthy these type of jobs were cited not because they are virtuous and useful ways to contribute to society - but because, you've guessed it, they pay BIG). But we can’t all be at the top of the tree professionally or financially. So by telling young people that getting a highly paid and prestige job is what they ought to aspire to and will give their lives proper fulfilment – we are simply setting up a large number of them to be failures. Unfortunately our materialistic society struggles to see beyond the length of its cheque-book and so wealth becomes the central measure by which it assesses the value of somebody’s life.

There was no message to people who might not be able to afford a Russell Group* university place (or indeed any university place) – that actually having an ‘ordinary job’ or not being ‘well off’ is ok! No suggestion that your life could be just as significant and fulfilling if you’re a gardener, a porter, a factory worker. In short there was no gospel in the assessment of this issue by any of the contributors. Rather a situation is perpetuated that pushes people to think of themselves as successes or failures (or become grateful or resentful) in life on the basis of personal wealth.

Now the Bible is not against social mobility – slaves who could secure their freedom were encouraged to do so. But equally for those who could not – they need not be overly troubled by it, their masters are themselves subject to a greater master, the slave is a freeman in Christ (1 Cor 7:20-22). The gospel transcends all social divides – it places men and women of every class, profession and tax bracket on the same footing before God. Indeed God values the widows mite much more than ‘cash splashed’ easily.

But in case this appears a convenient argument for a capitalist status quo – there is a second aspect, the one picked up in the Newsnight feature. The point was made that cities like London (and we could include Glasgow) were built in large part by the philanthropy of the super-rich in earlier times. The Victorian era being a case in point – a time when private money founded many of our hospitals, schools and public parks. Among the wealthy then it seems was a much greater sense of civic responsibility and of using their wealth to help others less well off. The current Mayor of London was asked, ‘What has changed, why aren’t the rich like that now, why don’t they use some of their astronomical wealth in such ways today?’ (paraphrase). He had no answer, other than it would be good if they were. The problem can't even be solved by greater taxation because this is a group who 'move'. So help for the poor who might go to university doesn't look like coming from this source.

Perhaps the difference between then & now is the Gospel. Then society, for all its many faults, was permeated by much greater sense of gospel values. The teaching of Christianity held much greater sway – far from universal but much greater nonetheless – so that even among non-Christians there was a greater sense of responsibility to others, and a greater sense of humility about the things they had achieved or possessed. It was the difference of being a society where your values are formed by Sunday School and sermons as opposed to Nickleodeon Ad' breaks and Saturday night TV.

You see it is the Gospel that gives people a sense of self-worth & purpose not dependant on financial success – and it is the Gospel that will engender the care and respect for people that will create a giving & humble heart in the rich.

*Russell Group is the name given for the top 20 UK universities.