After hearing and reading Michael Gove‘s comments about the dominance of the privately educated in pretty much every aspect of public life (from the Cabinet to Olympic medal winners to comedians) it caused a little recurring demon to unravel its wings within me. My dad always used to call me an inverted snob, being as I am as middle-class as they come (in the Purley sense, not the Kate Middleton sense) but never really liked that and pretended not to be. My university never had a ‘t’ in it, for example.
I’ve always been hyper-sensitive to the dominance of the wealthy elite. And now I am in church leadership it seems even more prevalent. I go to clergy gatherings and the demon roars. From the (stereotype alert) evangelicals in their chinos (before they were trendy) and brown loafers to the (anglo-)catholics in their black suits and shiny shoes, from the New Wine obsession with v-necks casually slung over shoulders to the Walsingham set counting vestment stitches and comparing organ voluntary favourites, we in the C of E are awash with the privately educated.
There is, of course, nothing wrong with being privately educated. After all, if your parents choose to inflict their principles on you, you can’t be blamed, and you must do your best to fight the system, regain a sense of community, ethics and discard the knowledge that you have a right to succeed (*tongue in cheek*). There is of course nothing inherently wrong with a mixed-economy education system, especially when everyone pays for the state system whether or not they use it.
But my thinking is this: why does it seem that so many clergy are from the private system? When I originally tweeted about this, other questions came up: what about Bishops, surely the percentage of those privately educated is huge. Why is this? For me, there is something about being in church hierarchy which means you begin to get obsessed with things ‘ordinary people’ are disconnected from: vestments, golf, literature, yourselves, and other privately educated people. Like Bishops.
I could of course be very wrong. And this could all be irrelevant. I have no figures to back up my thinking. And the thing about Jesus is that he uses all sorts to lead his people, regardless of background, and even despite their background. From the most annoying private school churn-out to the salt-of-the-earth rough diamond with no social graces, and even the left-leaning middle-class university-educated mocha-drinking inverted snob like me.
Thank God.
There’s just something worrying about it. It does matter. Doesn’t it?
There, I’ve kicked the demon in the privates and it’s back in its box.
I began thinking about this because of blogs by Jon Kuhrt and Sarah Mullally.















some comments back