INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
VALUES FOR LIFE
KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY THE RT REVD TIM STEVENS, BISHOP OF LEICESTER
Some of you will now the story told by the former Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, about a visit to the
London Eye with his niece. As the wheel turns and the London skyline comes into view, the little
girl starts to ask questions. First she sees the spires of the Houses of Parliament and asks “What is
that for?” The answer comes “That is where political capital is built and distributed – the power to
get things done.” Then she sees the glittering towers of the City of London: “What are they for?”
she asks. “They are where financial capital – the power to pay for things gets built.” Eventually
she sees the dome of St Paul’s Cathedral. “What is that for?” she asks. The Chief Rabbi replies
“That is where social capital – the power to make human beings flourish is built.” Jonathan Sacks
goes on to say that it is the erosion of social capital by our political and financial systems that is
one of the defining characteristics of our day. And it is about how we develop the values to build
social capital – the kind of communities, relationships and character which makes for human
flourishing, that I want to speak this afternoon.
Observing some of these issues from the Bishops’ Bench in the House of Lords, it seems that the
political classes have woken up to the fact that we do now need the language of character and of
virtue; we need to be thinking about values in exactly the way you are going to do in this
conference if we are to address the idea of the Common Good in any realistic way. It is dawning
that no amount of exhortation to pull our weight in society is any use without some thinking about
what kind of people we are, want to be and want others to be. What are the habits we want
people to take for granted? As a society we have allowed these habits to drift steadily towards a
preoccupation with the individual’s power to maximise choice, so that “freedom” comes to be
defined as a state in which you have the largest possible number of choices and no serious
obstacles to realising any of them. And that has meant that politics has been driven more and
1
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
more by the competition to offer a better range of choices – a marketising of the whole political
process. And yet whether your politics is of the Left or of the Right, it’s clear that an entirely
marketised kind of public policy leaves a motivational deficit in terms of building the Common
Good. If there is a neglect or even contempt for those kind of organisations or processes which
build character, no amount of economic growth, or shrinking or expanding of the State, or
decentralising and localising of decision making – none of these things will in themselves produce
the Good Society.
So today I want to look at some of the trends which militate against learning values and to explore
features of a society which encourages them.
My basic assumption is that a particular kind of emotional awareness is essential for mature
human functioning and that current trends in our society militate against the development of the
qualities needed.
Let me explain.
My assumption is that what we feel is not just a private affair. Communication with others is
possible because emotions can be shared in language and imagination. And my assumption is that
I am able to learn more about myself from others – to have my horizon extended by listening to
the words of others, to develop a sense of different possible worlds and different ways of
understanding or seeing myself. What I feel, and my capacity to externalise what I feel, are not
the end of the story. They must lead into a real mutuality of concern. And character is one of the
words we use to describe what happens when we begin to construct this serious, long term
account of who we are as persons in conversation with others. This is radically different from
staying within the territory of what we think we are sure of and assuming the absolute priority of
2
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
this in our policies or decisions. This approach to character has been described as becoming, in a
sense, strangers to ourselves, wondering about how and why we react to our environment,
searching for ways of making our response more sensitive and more alive.
I’m sure you will be professionally as alert to the current literature on emotional intelligence as I
am. It seems to throw into sharp relief the ways in which the signals in early life can create a long
term distortion of the capacity for empathy. Neurological research suggests that empathy is
linked with the capacity to inhibit violent emotional responses. It is connected with the ability to
see an integrated picture of the environment which leaves us less at the mercy of our immediate
emotional responses. If we live in a culture where a great many signals from the media, or
advertising or the way the economy functions, discourage empathy and self scrutiny and therefore
emotional awareness, it’s not surprising that we develop habits of self absorption, the urge for
dominance and short term perspectives. Our motivation to change anything other than what we
feel to be our immediate circumstances is weakened because our sense of ourselves as reflective
human beings is weakened. A clear implication of all this is that, without an education of the
emotions based on values, public or political life becomes simply a matter of managing the
competition of egos. It amounts to a kind of damage limitation with no collective vision of what
we’re striving for.
So at this point I want to see if it’s possible to detect any general trends in terms of our
understanding of values and ask you to discuss in a moment whether they are reflected in your
experience.
The recent claim by the Prime Minister that we live in a “Christian country”
stimulated discussion in the media over the Easter season. Suddenly the Leicester Mercury, Radio
Leicester and subsequently the Today programme all wanted to explore it. This raises profound
questions in a city like Leicester where more than 50% of the population comes from Asian origin
3
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
and adheres to non Christian faiths. We have some 60,000 or 70,000 Muslims in Leicester, some
60,000 Hindus, 25,000 Sikhs and all the major world religions. Interestingly, it was the Federation
of Muslim Organisations spokesman who wrote a piece in the local paper strongly supporting the
Prime Minister and arguing that Muslims definitely want to see a confident Christian community
and an established Church. They completely understand that calling Britain a Christian country is
not to suggest that all or even most people are practising Christians. Nor is it to suggest that
Christians should have a privileged position under the law. Nor is it to suggest that our laws all
should reference a Christian moral framework. Rather it is to claim that our major public
institutions: monarchy, church, education system, health system, the principle of equality under
the law etc. all have their historical roots in this country in a Christian understanding of society.
Now the question this raises is whether, in the search for shared values, it is legitimate to appeal
to the Judeo-Christian tradition or whether that immediately has the effect of excluding some
from the discussion. Is it indeed possible to have any shared public values at all in a highly
pluralistic society like ours? To explore the answer to that question we have to think a little bit
about secularism. It is a pretty slippery term. The former Archbishop, Rowan Williams, has noted
a distinction between two kinds of secularism. One he calls procedural secularism. This is one
which I imagine we would all support. It suggests a public policy which declines to give advantage
or preference to any one religious body over others. It is the principle according to which the
State defines it’s role as one of overseeing a variety of communities of religious conviction and of
no religious conviction ensuring that peace and fairness exist between them, without requiring
any specific confession of belief from any part of the community.
Contrasted with this is programmatic secularism. It defines a public orthodoxy to which only one
sort of loyalty is possible. This orthodoxy requires us to see loyalty to any particular faith as a
4
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
matter of private preference but it cannot stand alongside loyalty to the State - to the supposedly
neutral public order of rational people. And of course the problem with this is that without
respect for the possibility of criticising the State on the grounds of a truth central to one’s belief,
the chances of radical social change are threatened.
So I would argue that even in a pluralist and secular society the search for shared common values
is possible. That procedural secularism in which the State regards itself as at an equal distance
between all the religions in society is what we should be seeking. And that this approach to values
requires radical resistance to the idea that any public expression of faith trespasses on other
people’s consciences.
Let me give an example. A few months ago after the death of Nelson Mandela, Leicester City
Council arranged a public memorial event in Mandela Park in the city. Following an introduction
from the elected City Mayor, and various tributes from people with connections to South Africa, I
was asked to say a prayer near a plaque which had been erected in memory of Mandela. As I got
up to speak someone from the crowd called out “Shame”! and then heckled during the prayer. I
took this as something of a compliment, never having been heckled at prayer before! But in
conversation with the heckler afterwards, I realised that he believed I had no business praying in
public. “Go back to your Cathedral and close the door” he said “before you do this sort of thing.
We want none of it.” Well this was an articulate argument for programmatic secularism. That all
faith is private and that a rational, neutral, secular, totalitarian public orthodoxy can be arrived at
if faith is excluded from the public space.
Needless to say I couldn’t disagree more. And I believe that the values for life which I want to
argue for, do indeed have their roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition and help create citizens who
can inhabit a complex, pleural multi valued public space.
5
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
This why I think the Church is in the business of building character and teaching values. And if the
Church is actually nourishing people who understand empathy then it is shaping the character of
people who are bound to ask difficult questions in the wider public sphere: questions, for
example, about how priorities are identified when cuts in public expenditure are discussed. About
the supposed absolute imperative of continuous economic growth. About the levels of reward
unconnected with competence in the banking industry. And such people will also ask questions
about the values in public education. About what balance should be struck between research into
those things which create material wealth on the one hand compared with those things which
nourish empathy on the other. Further, the increasing resort to codes of “human rights” also
requires to be challenged at some points. The language of human rights needs to be grounded in
a clear sense of the dignity of the other person, not simply on the claims of the self. In other
words, language about rights becomes a fully moral business only when it is connected with
empathy, with the sense of the dignity of the other and thus of some sort of mutual flourishing or
cherishing.
So to summarise where we have got to so far, I am arguing that, in a plural society like ours, it is
still possible to build a vision of The Good Society on values which have their roots in the JudeoChristian tradition. But it is also vital to recognise that our society cannot be one which will
recognise one set of values as absolute, but will always struggle to some extent in the effort to
reconcile different value systems.
Further, there is nothing to be gained by an appeal to
“traditional values” whatever they might have been. Some of those so called traditional values
would be entirely undesirable and inappropriate today. We might take as examples the undue
deference to male dominance that the word “fidelity” used to convey which could imply that
woman’s duty was to be faithful even in the face of abusive relationships. So my vision of The
6
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
Good Society is one which is built on the demand that we do something together, across our
diversity, to help us through the transition from a single value system to a plural value system.
The Church of England presently has as one of it’s three quinquennial goals, “working for the
Common Good”. In principle this is a call to a new way of life, a movement away from a shallow
and selfish culture, from the me culture to the we culture. This involves the transformation of all
our relationships. The Common Good therefore is about much more than partisan politics. It
grows out of our personal and family lives, our vocational callings, the moral power of social
movements and the integrity of leadership in our public life as we fight not just for our rights, but
for the rights of all people. So the idea of the Common Good depends on the belief that our public
life could be transformed and healed and that the very deepest problems in our society, which
include glaring inequalities and the marginalisation of an ever larger subset of the population, can
be healed. The Common Good confronts us with questions about how we work together, with
people with whom we do not agree. How we treat each other, especially the poorest and the
most vulnerable. How we take care not just of ourselves but also one another. And only by
inspiring both a spiritual and a practical commitment to the Common Good can we, I believe, help
make our personal and public lives better. For Christians, the idea of the Common Good derives
from Jesus’ commandment to love our neighbour – which is still perhaps the most
transformational social ethic the world has ever seen. All our faith traditions include aspects of
this foundational ethic. Making our treatment of the most vulnerable the moral test of any
society’s righteousness is ultimately the best way to make absolutely sure we are protecting the
human life and dignity of everyone. And a commitment to the Common Good is also the best way
to find common ground with other people – even those who don’t agree with us or share our faith
commitments.
7
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
We had a vivid experience of this in Leicester a year or two ago. The English Defence League
announced that they were coming to march through the most sensitive Muslim neighbourhoods
of the city. The Chief Constable consulted community leaders and decided, on balance, that the
march should be allowed to go ahead. But tensions were rising and there was a serious threat of
civil disorder or even violence on the streets.
The night before the march we gathered
representatives of all the faith communities and voluntary organisations in the city in our
Cathedral. There were readings from the Scriptures and a time of silent prayer. Everyone with a
leadership role in the city was asked to do whatever we could to prevent a reaction to the march.
And once the march was over there was a great celebration of “One Leicester” in the main
shopping street. This was an exhilarating experience of a common sense of identity across
differences of faith, ethnicity, language and culture. It was a genuine experience of the Common
Good, derived from many years of co-operative working between leaders of very different
communities.
So now I want to examine three key words which I believe give expression in different ways to this
vision of the Common Good. The first comes primarily from the Christian tradition. The second
primarily from the Hebrew tradition and the third from the African tribal tradition.
The first word is koinonia – usually translated as fellowship. In the Greek it means “that which is
in common” and can be translated as fellowship or “community”. Other words might include
“union”, “partnership” or even”relationships”. In the Christian tradition it’s based on relationship
with Jesus. For the early Christians this was expressed in a genuine common life with shared
meals, shared possessions and practical support for the poor.
Here are one or two quotations which convey some sense of the word:
8
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
Acts 4: 32-35: “All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his
possessions was his own, that they shared everything they had. With great power the Apostles
continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or
houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the Apostles’ feet, and it was
distributed to any one as he had need.”
1 Corinthians 12: 12-13: “The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all it’s
parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. For we were all baptised by one spirit into
one body.”
What is the impact of this word on the way we see the work of schools in teaching values? Well
I’m sure you can imagine many of the questions which occur to me, they would include these:

How are pupils helped to see themselves as members of “one body” in which everyone in
the school has something to offer to the whole?

In what ways does the school lie at the heart of the local community?

How do you encourage pupils to work together co-operatively and support each other?

What opportunities do pupils have to develop links and exchange ideas with other schools?

In what practical ways can you seek to build a sense of community and mutual support
amongst staff?

Where strong differences of opinion are expressed how do you mobilise this concept to
help move forward to unity?
Some of these ideas emerge in the book entitled “The Home We Build Together” written by
Jonathan Sacks. In that book he rehearses the experience of staying in a hotel. People are
9
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
living closely together in the same building, possibly sharing the same facilities and food, but
living entirely disconnected, parallel and separated lives. He describes the process by which a
hotel might become a home, and the way in which profoundly different relationships then
begin to emerge. This he says is an image of nation building and community building in which
all the member begin to see and experience the benefit of the profound connectivity which
this word koinonia implies.
The second word I want to explore is the word shalom. This is a familiar concept with a huge
number of resonances. The author Cornelius Plantinga describes this word in a book entitled
“Not the way it’s supposed to be”. He writes: “The webbing together of God, humans, and all
creation in justice, fulfilment, and delight is what the Hebrew Prophets call shalom. We call it
peace but it means far more than mere peace of mind or a ceasefire between enemies. In the
Bible, shalom means universal flourishing, wholeness and delight – a rich state of affairs in
which natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, a state of affairs that
inspires joyful wonder as it’s creator and saviour opens doors and welcomes the creatures in
whom he delights. Shalom, in other words, is the way things ought to be.”
Two years or so ago, at the beginning of the Diamond Jubilee celebration by the Queen, she
decided at short notice to come to Leicester for the day. We were asked to consider how we
might host her in the Cathedral. In six short weeks all kinds of arrangements were put in place
including a great welcome in the city with people of all faiths participating. We decided to
adorn the Cathedral with three great banners bearing the words shalom, shanti, salaam. They
summarised precisely what we were trying to celebrate in the presence of the Head of State,
celebrating sixty years in that role. The visit to Leicester was intended to demonstrate
monarchy in relation to a plural, multi religious society which held enough things in common
10
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
to feel like one society with a common loyalty to the Crown. Shalom seemed exactly the word
which conveyed this.
And the building of shalom, of course involves the development of many values which
contribute to it. Without, for example, learning forgiveness little progress will be made. Other
values come to mind as well if community is to be built, including humility and thanksgiving.
The capacity to see the goodness in others, to be grateful for the intensity and richness of life.
All of these things are elements in the building up of shalom.
The third word I want us to focus on is the word ubuntu. This is an idea from Southern Africa
which literally means “humanness” and is often translated as “humanity towards others” but is
also used in a more philosophical sense to mean “the belief in a universal bond of sharing that
connects all humanity”. An often used shorthand for this idea is: “I am what I am because of
who we all are”. Archbishop Desmond Tutu has offered a definition as follows: “A person with
ubuntu is open and available to others, affirming of others, does not feel threatened that
others are able and good, based from a proper self assurance that comes from knowing that he
or she belongs in a greater whole and is diminished when others are humiliated or diminished,
when others are tortured or oppressed.” On another occasion Tutu wrote this: “Ubuntu speaks
particularly about the fact that you can’t exist as a human being in isolation. It speaks about
our interconnectedness. You can’t be human all by yourself, and when you have this quality
you are known for your generosity. We think of ourselves far too frequently as just individuals,
separated from one another, whereas you are connected and what you do affects the whole
world. When you do it well, it spreads out; it is for the whole of humanity.”
I witnessed the power of this vision when Desmond Tutu came a year or two ago to the
University of Leicester to receive an Honorary Degree. He had three minutes to address an
11
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
audience of 1,500 medics. They were not particularly religious and they came from all over the
world. Tutu got up and spelled out this vision of ubuntu. What you do with your life, he said,
is not your own personal property. It will affect not only yourself, your family, your friends,
but by extension the whole human race. Have a large enough vision to see your potential for
changing the world and do not betray it. I cannot begin to replicate the power of his
personality but as he invited the medical students to “dream large dreams” and to understand
the meaning of ubuntu, they rose to give him a spontaneous standing ovation. These are
indeed powerful concepts when communicated by people who appear to embody them in
their own lives.
One other figure who has clearly embodied it is Nelson Mandela who wrote this in his book
“The Long Walk to Freedom”: “A traveller through a country would stop at a village and he
didn’t have to ask for food or for water. Once he stops, the people give him food and attend
him. That is one aspect of ubuntu, but it will have various aspects. Ubuntu does not mean that
people should not enrich themselves. The question therefore is: are you going to do so in order
to enable the community around you to be able to grow?”
According to Michael Eze, the core of ubuntu can best be summarised like this: “Humanity is a
quality we owe to each other. We create each other and need to sustain this otherness
creation. And if we belong to each other, we participate in our creations: we are because you
are, and since you are, definitely I am. The I am is not a rigid subject, but a dynamic self
constitution dependent on this otherness creation of relation and distance.”
Well these are all interconnected ideas of course. I have not given you a list of value I think
you should pursue in your schools. I’m sure you are as capable of considering what they
should be as I am. I have tried to talk about the pressures in our society which lead towards
12
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
individualism. I have tried to talk about the way in which the institutions that have conveyed
common values in the past have been eroded and undermined. I have explored whether it is
possible for us to hold common public values or whether we are engaged in creating the kind
of society in which different values can live peacefully together. I have tried to explore
therefore what we mean by the Common Good and how it relates in particular to the Christian
tradition. I have looked at the concept of the secular society and how some kinds of
secularism enable religious values to flourish while others are inimical to any public religious
values.
And finally I have offered you these three words to think about. I hope that I may have
stimulated you to read more about them and to think about how they might become
characteristics both of your schools, but also of the kind of civil society you want your students
to be prepared for. Free market capitalism has a huge amount to offer us, but it carries real
dangers of individualism, of acquisitiveness, of competitiveness and of a fixation on self
actualisation which make the building of community and of nationhood problematic.
Shortly before he was assassinated, Senator Robert Kennedy gave a speech in which he said:
“Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out
against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million
different centres of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the
mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.” To learn values is to resist the danger of futility:
the belief that there is nothing one person can do against the enormous array of the world’s
ills. The politics of despair is the worst kind there is. The sense of powerlessness is all too
easily manipulated by those hungry for power. An antidote to this is the creation of human
beings who can take responsibility. Who refuse to believe that there is nothing that we can
13
INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE: 15 MAY 2014
do. Who decide never to take refuge in blaming others, making them scapegoats for our
frustrations and fears. Because I believe the work you do in helping people to discover values
which transform society is a task of immense seriousness and significance for our society, I
thank you for inviting me to be part of this day and I wish you well in all the discussions that
follow.
14