WHEN William Temple (later to be Archbishop of Canterbury) first coined the term “Welfare State” in the late 1920s, he was by no means naïve about the dangers of the “Big State”. Already conscious of the potential for welfare dependency, he was con­cerned that the moral heart of the nation might be removed from local communities through an increased moral place for central government.

“If the state absorbs into itself the cultural activities, who is to rectify errors or disproportions in the minds of those who manipulate its enormous powers?” he asked in 1935.

Temple’s concerns seem to chime with the political discourse of our own times, and his passionate belief that true moral character is lived out in local communities continues to resonate with the experience of much parochial church life today.

This is why the churches have not joined the popular sceptical choruses demanding “What is the Big Society, anyway?” We know what it is, and we know how effective it is.

Frankly, we’re glad that it is being recognised at last, when the previous Government, as the report from the Von Hügel Institute in Cambridge, Moral, But No Compass (Matthew James Publishing, 2008) concluded, “consistently failed to pay more than enthusiastic lip service to [the Church of England’s] role in society generally and in the third sector in particular”.

Many in the Church have a sense that our moment has come, and that the Big Society will see a long-awaited rebalancing of power between in­dividual, state, and intermediate as­sociations (Comment, 14 January). Others are simply pleased to see the Church associated in the media with anything other than sex and schism.

The past few days, however, have seen too many wheels fall off the Big Society wagon for us to think that we are on an easy path to a rejuvenated civic life in Britain. Events ought to give the churches pause to consider the wider political picture.

IT HAS become increasingly clear that the Government’s agenda in empowering community groups is the flip side of a less attractive pro­gramme of ruthless public-sector cuts.

Leaving aside the questions of how urgently the deficit necessitates these cuts, or whether a tax on bankers’ bonuses might keep a few more libraries open, Dame Elisabeth Hoodless of Community Service Volunteers this week has rightly pointed out that the radical down­scaling of local-government services is not the correct context in which to stimulate a thriving civic culture. Liverpool City Council has decided that it is impossible, and withdrawn from its Big Society pilot project.

It is difficult to change a political culture at the best of times, but in the present climate it seems that we cannot build a Big Society as fast as youth clubs, Surestart nurseries, and day centres for the elderly are closing. When the Big Society Minister Lord Wei announced that he was scaling back his hours last week, it did little to convey the Government’s sense of urgency here.

This naïvety about the socio-economic conditions necessary for social renewal was highlighted in Malcolm Brown’s excellent paper for the General Synod in November, The Big Society (GS 1804), which pointed out that no Coalition minister had yet “made any connection between the strength of social bonds and the workings of the wider economy. The impact of aggressive competitiveness in business and the workplace, the impact of growing material in­equality, and the crushing effects of large-scale unemployment do not figure, as yet, in the public depiction of The Big Society.”

The danger here is not simply that we struggle to renew civic life in the face of economic austerity, but that we actually collude in a political tran­sition that exacerbates social depriva­tion and erodes community for years to come.

It is hard at the moment to see how the scaling-back of the state in many areas of public policy can mean anything other than the creation of more room for market forces. Current reforms of the health service, schools, and even the dismantling of the Forestry Commission, all point to greater marketisation, with little potential for community groups to be significant players.

SO, AS well as applauding the evolution of a state that makes more space for civic groups, perhaps we need also to argue for a state that is a better regulator of the kind of erratic market forces that lead to social fragmentation, inequality, and job insecurity. If we do not, those claim­ing that the Big Society presents “a great opportunity for the Church” may come to look increas­ingly callous.

A recovery of the understanding of society as a “community of com­munities” must not overlook the reality that we urgently need a strong centre to put in place the kind of economic framework that will allow this society to flourish.

When asked about her views on the Big Society last month, the moral philosopher Onora O’Neill advocated “enormous changes in the regulatory state”, but added: “Of course, the idea of a minimal state has been associated with the idea of market dominance, and I suspect that a minimal state would be nasty, brutish, and, alas, not too short.”

We might well share Temple’s concerns about a big state. But he saw the state’s goal as “the welfare of the community”, and advocated its moral role in difficult economic times.

In our own era, we may still require a strong state to regulate and re­distribute, to ensure funding and equity of provision in the services that disadvantaged people need. Only then can civil society thrive.To oppose “Big State” with “Big Society”, in an age of aggressive market forces, may turn out to be a false dichotomy in our pursuit of a flourishing civic life.

The Revd Dr James Walters is Chaplain to the London School of Economics.