The comparatively new Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, is an exceptional man with a compelling personal story. He was born in Uganda, one of thirteen children in a four-bedroom house, and walked twelve miles to school each day. Thanks to his efforts, he was a lawyer in his homeland; but he was driven out by Idi Amin in 1974. He was ordained into the Church of England and, in fairly rapid succession, became the Bishop of Stepney, then of Birmingham, and now serves as the second most senior figure in Anglicanism.

It is that background which enables him to look at modern Britain from a distinctive perspective. He argues: “I speak as a foreigner really.” If so, the Archbishop is a very British foreigner. He is both an instinctive outsider and the ultimate insider.

He has few qualms about speaking his mind and in a manner which is comprehensible. His remarks in The Times today about multiculturalism, in particular, will and should attract attention. They are a valuable contribution to what is a vague and volatile debate.

The Archbishop does not denounce the notion of multiculturalism but he wants it to be meaningful. British society has always evolved through incorporating new influences. This is natural, but, as he contends, “multiculturalism has seemed to imply, wrongly for me, ‘Let other cultures be allowed to express themselves but do not let the majority culture tell us of its glories.’ ” He is unashamedly supportive of what he calls “English culture” and troubled that what it is to be English is a serious question in certain quarters. Rather than referring to “tolerance” in multi-culturalism, he prefers to think in terms of a “spirit of magnanimity”.

The word sentamu means “fire-stoker” in Luganda, the Archbishop’s native tongue, and he will probably face the accusation of stoking the flames. His view that the British Empire was far from all bad will not endear him to those who wring their hands as often as they place them together in prayer. His sharp observation that the colonies controlled by Britain in his part of Africa were provided with a better legacy than those administered by France or Belgium will no doubt annoy those with little sense of history.

Such criticism would be nonsense. Multiculturalism has obvious merit. A society has, though, to have a spine in order for it to possess a functioning body. A nation without a uniform sense of shared values is not destined to have a sense of itself. The Archbishop is right to articulate that point, and correct when he notes, without embarrassment, the essential part that Christianity has played in the formation of modern British culture.

Candour and clarity are not always qualities associated with the highest echelon of the Church of England. It is appropriate for the Archbishop of York to make the most of his platform as well as his pulpit, even if that may court controversy occasionally.

In his interview, he expresses the ambition to be Jethro to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Moses. Jethro, the father-in-law of Moses, was considered very practical, a man who was always making constructive suggestions. After a week in which the General Synod has again shown that the Church is divided over matters of sexuality and uncertain of its own direction, a few more practical and public suggestions from this Archbishop would certainly be welcome.