Social enterprise in the theologies of William Temple and John Milbank

Abstract

This article considers the possibility of enriching the Temple tradition of Anglican social theology. The enrichment in question would involve an increased focus on the role of social enterprises, such as mutuals, co-operatives, community interest companies, micro-enterprises and enterprising charities; whereas the Temple tradition has previously followed William Temple himself in seeking to promote economic and social change primarily by influencing national government. The article asks to what extent this enrichment would find support in Temple’s thought, and what the implications of it would be for the Temple tradition. This is explored by developing a contrast between the Temple’s theology and that of John Milbank, a theologian of the Radical Orthodoxy movement. Their theologies of social enterprise are shown to have points of similarity, but also important differences, in terms of: the relation between theology and economic and social thought; the role of intermediate associations in society; and approaches to transforming markets. Milbank’s theology implies proactive, deep engagement by the church in supporting existing social enterprises and originating new ones, which Temple’s does not. The conclusion drawn is that an increased focus on social enterprise has some, but partial, support in Temple’s theology. For the Temple tradition an increased focus on social enterprise would imply: changing the focus for dialogue and action to the civic, regional and local, rather than national, level; developing new capabilities and resources, including theological resources which are richer and more specific than Temple’s middle axioms; and taking a more selective view of the role of the state.

Keywords:

• Social enterprise
• Church of England
• pluralism
• religion
• mediating institutions
• civil society
• state

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank: The William Temple Foundation and University of Worcester for the opportunity to present this article at the Social Justice Conference; those who attended the presentation of this article for useful questions and comments; and those who have provided written comments, including Chris Baker, Nicolas Baumgartner, Philip Goodchild, John Milbank, Eve Poole, Angus Ritchie and Desmond Tillyer. I gratefully acknowledge financial support for preparatory work received from The Lady Peel Trust.