Man cannot live by bread alone — but without it he might not survive. The Archbishop of Canterbury sought yesterday to wrestle with that dilemma while delivering a sermon on the sixtieth anniversary of Christian Aid. There was much in what he said that would properly secure a consensus. In other areas, however, he took issue with conventional economic practice.

Dr Rowan Williams was certainly right to commend an institution that has performed extraordinary tasks in very awkward circumstances. He was also correct to emphasise the distinct role which faith-based organisations play in the developing world. He, properly, echoed the recent statement of the Commission for Africa that “Aid donors need to view religious organisations as equal partners rather than simply the means through which to disseminate their health message”. His statement that, at times, “the rich protect their markets while talking about the virtues of free trade” is, alas, accurate. There should be notably less political exchange in such abject hypocrisy.

In other respects, nevertheless, the Archbishop appeared to be lukewarm about existing trading arrangements. He asserted that it “forces choices” on “vulnerable countries” and that these might be “very costly indeed” for an entire “generation of workers”. He observed that it was possible for a “spectacular increase in national wealth” to take place alongside “instability, increased poverty in many areas and a loss of social cohesion”. He pondered: “Does a nation, a society, work for all its citizens? If pressure for trade liberalisation creates a situation where this looks more remote, there is a clear problem from the Christian perspective”. Many others share his analysis.

It is one that also tends towards an unduly pessimistic assessment of free trade and its impact. Although there are undoubtedly many difficulties associated with economic transition, these challenges are preferable to the false stability, endemic poverty and the culture of ignorance characterised in countries that exclude themselves from commerce. The recent record of China and India, although not without its turbulence, is that hundreds of millions of people have been lifted from poverty through economic engagement. The further consequences, as a rule, are that such societies become more open, more diverse in nature and more democratic.

The Archbishop, like Pope Benedict XVI, is wary of shallow materialism. Dr Williams wrongly implies that this is the inevitable by-product of market economics. Capitalism, though, like Christianity, is a matter of free will and not determinism. The resources it generates can be employed for multiple purposes. Many of these will have — by design or not — a profoundly positive impact on the human condition. That some souls will be less wise with the bounty that trade brings is not a reason to condemn the system. The lessons of experience must not be neglected. The present campaign to “Make Poverty History” should not involve invoking a distorted sense of history in the process. The Archbishop should have more faith in free trade.