How Institutions fail us. Chernobyl, Trump and the Church of England

Many people in this country have watched the television mini-series Chernobyl, even though it has not been transmitted by the main terrestrial channels.  It is a powerful drama/documentary and helps us to understand the moral bankruptcy of the Soviet system some five years before its final collapse.  The judgement of Mikhail Gorbachev, no less, was that the explosion at the plant was the ‘turning point’ that ‘opened the possibility of much greater freedom of expression, to the point that the system as we knew it could no longer continue’. 

Viewed from this perspective, the drama and the event that was portrayed in it was less about a nuclear event and more about a once mighty institution being tested by a crisis and failing, lamentably, to respond adequately.  The most telling parts of the drama are the exchanges about truth and its control during the course of the drama.  To stop the outside world knowing what had happened, phone lines were cut and Moscow rejected an immediate evacuation of the neighbouring town, Pripyat, and the surrounding area.   ‘Panic is even worse than radiation’ Boris Shcherbina, a vice-chairman of the Council of Ministers supervising the management of the crisis, declared.  As a good party functionary Shcherbina was giving voice to the paranoid communist aversion to ‘alarmism’. This was a crime in the Soviet Union and it could see its perpetrator sent to a labour camp.  It was not as though ‘truth’ did not exist within the system, but that the ruling communist system was the arbiter of which truth was allowed to prevail.  In one memorable scene, to rapturous applause, Zharkov, a veteran communist and member of the Pripyat governing council, makes a statement espousing rudimentary communist morality to local officials.  ‘No one leaves [Pripyat]. And cut the phone lines. Contain the spread of misinformation. That is how we keep the people from undermining the fruits of their own labour.’

The priority of the ‘system’ over truth and the preservation of human life has an eery parallel to the events in America today.  It has been apparent for some time that, for Donald Trump, ‘truth’ is what furthers his political future.  It has very little to do with reality or the good of the people for whom he has responsibility as President.  Lies and false claims of success help to make him feel good about himself, feeding his toxically narcissistic personality.  His desire and need to retain power is also obsessive.  He enjoys being at the pinnacle of influence, but his enjoyment of such a position is also connected to a fear that, were he to lose it, an avalanche of lawsuits for financial skullduggery and other crimes will descend on him the moment he leaves office.  For supporters, Trump’s power and confidence becomes their power.  As with cult membership they identify with their leader and share in his ‘achievements’.  They have allowed themselves to become merged in some real sense with his personality so they cannot stand apart and see anything wrong in what he says or does.  His ‘truth’ has become their truth and they cannot see the high price that they are paying to live in a distorted universe of Trump’s making.

The social situations we have described refer to very different historical settings.  But Soviet Russia and Trump’s America have something in common.  Both have provided, for some sections of the population, a system or institution that can be relied on and believed in.  In both cases what was believed in was rooted in deceit and lies but that did not matter as what was gained appeared to outdo that.  Having an institution to lean on, whether Soviet communism or Trumpian triumphalism, removes anxiety and self-doubt – for a time.  But each of them provides a reason for not thinking or taking a critical look at what is going on around.  In such a situation anxiety is banished, internal calm is restored.  It does not matter that the telephone to the world beyond is severed, as long as peace and tranquillity is preserved within the mind of the blind follower.

Trusting that an institution or a person is totally reliable so that you do not have to think things out for yourself is what small children and totalitarian followers do.   It is almost as though the ability to think through complex ideas and to have an opinion of one’s own is too hard for many people.  It is the situation that allows the instant ready to serve opinions of the Daily Mail and Fox News to flourish.   Sadly, the desire to go into a ‘not-think’ state applies to many church people.   This blog post often refers to the anti-intellectualism of right-wing fundamentalists in the States, but we are not referring to them at this point.  What we are talking about is the failure of many people to challenge institutional thinking or any voice that appears to have authority.  We may not think of ourselves as being subject to the decrees of institutions, but intellectual laziness is sadly extremely common.  When there is such mental laziness around, those who have power can get away with misusing it.  Most of the time it is not appropriate to use the word ‘abuse’ to describe what is going on.   Rather we should perhaps speak of acquiescing in an unhealthy power dynamic which is subtly undermining an individual and their capacity for individual agency.

The ‘not-think’ state that exists in churches, as individuals lean on leaders and the institution itself, is part of the reason that makes it difficult for survivors to be heard and the cause of justice generally to prevail. I am well aware that justice for abuse survivors is not the only issue that church people should be fighting for. The fact that there are other rampant injustices towards minorities of all kinds in the church is well known. Each of these deserves to have vigorous spokespeople demanding our attention.  The supporters of all these causes will probably have the same complaint. Their fellow Christians are often beset, not by wickedness, but everywhere there is a prevailing apathy, laziness and the pursuit of comfort which distracts them from a proper engagement with the issues.  These same forces of apathy, which disengage mind and feeling, allowed the Soviet system to exist for a long time.  They also allow Donald Trump to bewitch a large minority of the American people, in spite of the inanity and shallowness of his words and thoughts.  The call to lift people out of inert thinking to active engagement with the causes of our time is not meant to be biased towards a particular political party view.  It is asking people not to lean on institutions, but to engage individually with the matters of the day using their thinking, their feeling and their consciences.

On a final note we may suggest that both in the State and in the churches we are suffering from a paralysis of leadership.  Leadership in these contexts is not telling people what to do or what to think.  It is getting people to fully engage with what is going on and use all these abilities of feeling and intellect to grapple with and respond to events.  I have yet to hear clear words of leadership from the Prime Minister or our religious leaders.  I would like to see some imaginative prophetic thinking going on to suggest how the path to the future should unfold.  Things are going to be different for our nation and for the world in general.  As things stand, there will be massive costs to be paid for by future generations.   Rather than penalise only our children and grandchildren, we should be talking about the costs to our generation, those that need to be met now.  From the State I would expect to hear something about increased taxes and from the Church some straight talking about what the institution can realistically afford in the future.  Even ‘back of the envelope’ calculations suggest that there is going to be an earthquake ahead in what the church can afford to sustain in terms of its activities  The sooner that planning starts in earnest to adjust to this future, the better.  Leadership in the Church of England needs to be open.  The calamities and failures of safeguarding have been partly as the result of the church, at the leadership level, attempting to hide its crises in secret committees.  If the transition to the future, whatever that may involve, is to be a smooth one, we need to hear far more of what goes on behind closed doors.  Institutional self-protectionism is no longer appropriate.  The  institutionally dictated attitudes that have failed us in many safeguarding events need to be overcome.  We need to feel that the church authorities are truly on our side.

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.

10 thoughts on “How Institutions fail us. Chernobyl, Trump and the Church of England

  1. This is fascinating. Thank you!

    Basically, despite serious failures at unit 1 in Leningrad in 1975 and at Chernobyl itself in 1982, institutional inertia and a dogmatic belief in the benefits of the nuclear sector prevented anything from happening. Indeed, the outrage over the Three Mile Island incident in Pennsylvania in 1979 led the president of the Soviet Academy of Sciences (Anatolii Aleksandrov) to accuse opponents of nuclear power of ‘irrationality’. Whilst, in many ways, the Soviet response to the disaster compared favourably to that of the Japanese authorities at Fukushima, it has been noted that:

    “Soviet emergency management’s poor performance in the Chernobyl disaster resulted from the involved institutions’ incompatible perceptions of risk. The failure to act promptly following the accident seriously threatened the legitimacy of civil defense, giving it a different hierarchy of risk than the party and Ministry of Energy had. GO was ostensibly created to allow the Soviet state to survive a nuclear war, so its failure to take decisive action in the face of a much more limited challenge threatened its standing with both the Soviet government and population, particularly given that civil defense had begun planning for civilian nuclear accidents years earlier. Therefore, both institutional and moral considerations impelled civil defense officials to press
    for evacuations and other emergency measures. The Communist Party and nuclear industry, however, hoped to follow the example of earlier Soviet radiological disasters and keep the accident secret, even if this increased the health risks to Soviet citizens. Precedent and habit both recommended this strategy, but the proximity of the crippled plant to the west along with changing political conditions within the USSR soon forced the Soviet Union’s leaders to reverse course. Chastened by damning rumors and foreign criticism, the Soviet government found itself compelled to begin implementing Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost both sooner and more expansively than expected. Political self-interest rather than lofty ideological ideals impelled this change in stance. Protecting legitimacy and prestige always took priority over public health and safety, as for the Soviet leadership, the most worrisome fallout from Chernobyl always remained the political rather than the radioactive kind.” (Edward Geist ‘Political Fallout: The Failure of Emergency Management at Chernobyl’ Slavic Review, v. 74, no. 1 (2015), 104-26, a brilliant analysis. See also esp. the late G. Medvedev ‘The Truth about Chernobyl’ (1991)).

    I think that some of these remarks are absolutely on point with respect to the Church. Stephen is (as usual) entirely right in noting the correlation.

  2. Two other points:

    Re Trump, the common argument is that his supporters have been conned into conspiring against their own interests (i.e., they are stupid and unthinking). Is this true? His (overwhelmingly white) base have made the connection between: (i) civil rights and their relative economic decline (true, if inevitable, since upward mobility by educated African-Americans and other immigrants must result in a measure of downward mobility for less educated whites); and (ii) free trade and the disappearance of well-paid unionised jobs (QED). So even if they know he is absurd, he is representing their interests, which the Democrats (whose base is now largely minorities and who broadly subscribe to free trade) do not. However, since his was a hostile take-over of the GOP he must throw GOP legislators the bone of continued trickle-down. Everyone outside the GOP knows it doesn’t work, but it is a Reaganite shibboleth; however, the effect is largely to neutralise his push for tariffs. See this masterly analysis: https://phenomenalworld.org/analysis/the-class-politics-of-the-dollar-system

    ” I would like to see some imaginative prophetic thinking going on to suggest how the path to the future should unfold.”

    I believe the Church must make a decisive contribution to the political conversation in this country, or else why have the parliamentary representation. What about some bills to cover the following:

    1. Overhaul the Landlord and Tenant Act 1989 to give rights to tenants (rent controls for a period, proper notice, etc. – go back to the Rent Act 1977).

    2. Introduce a usury law (the rhetoric about Wonga ran into the sands; the UK is almost the only OECD state which does not cap interest – the long shadow of Nassau Senior and the liberal Anglicans of the 1830s and ’40s). Cap it at 3% above base for the time being.

    3. Adjust the ‘equity of redemption’ to give mortgagors greater security whilst crisis conditions endure.

    4. Introduce QE for individuals.

    5. Close UK tax havens.

    6. Devise a proper ‘bancor’ scheme for the resolution of international imbalances (one of the primary causes of Brexit IMHO).

    7. Remove the tax preferences to debt over equity, over a period of 5 or so years.

    8. Tax the capital gains enjoyed by owner occupiers on the primary place of residence (i.e., reintroduce Schedule A) – if necessary, defer it to probate.

    9. Establish an industrial investment bank.

    10. Write off all non-mortgage debts (other than bonds) that cannot reasonably be redeemed after 20 or 30 years.

    As the bishops sit in the Lords, and as the Lords cannot introduce ‘money bills’ there is no reason why private members’ bills touching on ‘money’ could not be introduced by Andrew Selous (though he would probably be against most of the above!).

    The Church should be arguing for a preference for work over rents and security over opportunism. But it might have to think twice about being so thick with Black Rock…

    1. Sorry ‘other immigrants’ is a dismal solecism for which many apologies. African-Americans are not, of course, immigrants. I was referring to the cohorts that have immigrated into the US and have flourished since Hart-Celler (1965).

  3. In churches the price we pay for fusional non-thinking, non-questioning, walled-off living is a massive one. We make big mistakes frequently with a time lag behind more enlightened society of many decades. That society looks at us and sees weird people, and church membership continues its relentless decline.

    Not all churches are equal. New congregations have been set up in double quick time with inspiring leaders, no expensive heritage to maintain and no open ended pension schemes. I argue they hasten the decline of the establishment churches. Many here will dislike this. Like it or not people are either leaving or moving.

    Like a corrupt politburo, the establishment “leadership” is, I agree, nothing of the sort. My personal view is that it is managed decline. Like the retrograde Trumpian/DailyFailian policies of self-interested knee-jerk anti-everyone else-but-me, it basically can’t work.

    It will take an act of nuclear leadership to change the trajectory of the Church of England. There’s little evidence at the minute that this is even under consideration.

    An inspiring and powerful piece of writing Stephen. Thanks

  4. Magnificent polemic, analysis and comment from Stephen, Froghole and Steve. Thank you so much. I’m a recently retired incumbent who before taking orders was a medical school teacher of anatomy. My knowledge and skills are by no means up to those of the three writers I name, but as a clerk in holy orders I was increasingly frustrated and angered by an institution that worships cronyism, lauds and rewards inefficiency, peddles pretence and hypocrisy, treats its “workforce” like children in need of chivvying, and expects blind obedience from its financial supporters (congregations). This virus will, I hope, be the handmaid of radical change with the surgeon’s scalpel wielded relentlessly and remorselessly to excise the cancers of clericalism and self-referential pen pushing at all levels in the institution. I could enlarge on every point I make above but enough is enough. I thought third level educational establishments were bad enough, but …

    It’s not an analogy as vivid as Chernobyl and the USSR, or the court of Trump, but as someone who has studied the writings of Paul Scott, I came to appreciate the dismal parallels between on the one hand the English in India and their relationship with the indigenous Indians, and on the other that between the bishops and apparatchiks of the C of E and the faithful.

    But then, as someone who spent 19 years working in the Republic of Ireland, I realise that there is another parallel much closer to home.

    Thank you again.

  5. Always interesting. Thank you, Stephen.
    Your opening paragraphs reminded me that image is the thing. Have you noticed in Revelation the role of the image of the beast? It even takes on its own personality.
    I agree about the lack of leadership at this time. I launched my own call, at http://www.turntojesus.co.uk as an attempt to fill the gap, on the basis of better to have something than nothing. Feedback has been slow.
    Go well!

  6. By “the church” do you mean the CofE or all churches? From where I sit the headless chickens are more numerous and running faster in ever decreasing circles in the CofE. Oh no … it’s the laity … they’re doing theology again …. that sort of thing

    1. The answer is probably that I am mainly talking about the C/E but most of the problems of ‘no-think’ are probably shared by all denominations and none. The word ‘church’ with a small ‘c’ is probably an invitation to a reader to apply it to their own experience of church. I am not aware of any church group that is completely free of this problem.

Comments are closed.