One of the words that is at the forefront of Christian observance during Lent is self-examination. This implies that a good Christian should give time to trawl through memory and awareness to discover whether his/her behaviour has worsened or improved over the previous weeks and months. There is a strong emphasis in much Christian writing on personal responsibility for one’s sin and the need to seek forgiveness. Some do this kind of self-examination alone, while others seek out another Christian to act as a mentor/confessor. Whichever method of self-scrutiny is adopted, there is the hope that we are somehow moving towards a goal of knowing ourselves better under God, and becoming more righteous people. The Christian pilgrimage should always involve this kind of effort to penetrate through the fog of self-deceit and self-delusion of which we are all guilty.
As a child I was required to learn by heart a large section of the Prayer Book Catechism, especially the section on the duty towards God and neighbour. The words about keeping our hands ‘from picking and stealing’ and keeping ‘my body in temperance, soberness and chastity’ made quite an impression. What remains in me of this style of instruction is a memory that the Christian journey seemed rather bleak and lonely. One thing that was never emphasised was that the life of discipleship involved other people. The Catechism seemed to be encouraging us to think of Christian life as a lonely individual trek, avoiding sin as best we could. The way of life was very much one between the individual and God. Self-examination was one way that we kept, or tried to keep, these lines of communication open. At the risk of caricature, one could describe this path to self-examination as being of the ‘8am said communion’ variety of Christian observance.
Two things have become increasingly apparent to me since those long-ago days of the 1950s. In the first place it has become clear to me that sin is not, and never has been, only a matter of individuals surrendering to temptation. We have become dramatically aware of the corporate dimension to sin. At one level this corporate sin is not something we can do much about. Human responsibility for war, climate change and poverty go far beyond the capabilities of individuals to resolve, even those who run whole countries. There is, however, a responsibility to make ourselves prayerfully informed of these big issues like racism and the various forms of phobia directed at minorities the world over. Just because we cannot sort out a problem does not release us from all responsibility for concerning ourselves with it. Corporate sins continue to exist as social and political realities, and we live in that world. None of us, anyway, can claim total innocence in our personal relationships to them. Each of us may be guilty of harbouring some secret sympathy for one or other of these social evils, even when such collusion may be totally hidden. A temptation to sympathise with, say, misogyny or homophobia may be something we never admit to, but it is perhaps still to be found deep within our psyches. Such attachments to corporate sin need to be owned up to in our hearts, even if we never act on them or express out loud any attraction to them. We may be ‘guilty’ in some sense for this failure to root out such attitudes in ourselves.
The second thing that has changed for me is a new awareness of the ways in which sin has a habit of attaching itself to groups of people, and then progressively corrupting everyone in that network. We are not talking about the big issues like racism, world poverty or climate change. As Jesus said ‘the poor you have with you always’. There is an indication here that he recognised that, while our actions will help that situation, it will not make it disappear. The corporate evil for which we do have considerable responsibility is of a different order. It is found, for example, in the act of a passive colluding in a committee decision which is obviously wrong. A readiness to go along with a group decision for the sake of a quiet life is a common manifestation of this kind of sin today. Allowing an evil to take place because we are intimidated by a powerful chairman or misplaced loyalties is a manifestation of personal failing, even if we have not, individually, done or said anything. We still carry guilt from our refusal to confront what may be a clear evil in front of us.
One of the things I have learnt In my role as an advocate for survivors, is to see clearly the corporate miasma of evil which can spread from the malevolence of a few to envelop groups and even large institutions. When a group within an institution decides to turn on an individual for reasons of their own, they seem to find ways of pressuring the bystander to join in this campaign of persecution. Such bullying behaviour is not in any way condoned by the bystander, but a failure to speak up makes them a collaborator and an enabler of injustice. Again and again, even at the highest levels of authority in the Church, I have become aware of dynamics within committees that fail to challenge malevolence, and thus allow acts of evil to take place. The guilt that is spread across a colluding group is not the same as a deliberate act of choosing wrongdoing. We find here a different sort of evil, the evil of passive collusion. It appeals to a desire for a quiet life but also feeds on a weakened sense of justice and truth in those present. This tolerance of evil may be an act of cowardice, but the consequences are still serious. Evil is permitted to slip through the net; the consciences of those involved are not operating effectively.
In this blog piece I have identified three areas of failure which should lead us to confession and a request for forgiveness from God. Two of these areas of evil are arenas where it is possible to see our measure of responsibility. The third is, we have indicated, outside our control, but we are still required to attend to it, pray about it and do what we can to alleviate the pain caused by it. I am, of course, talking about the evils of war, famine, poverty and natural disasters. Leaving these to one side for a moment, I want to reiterate my focus on the area of life where we collude with evil without perhaps realising that we are doing it. Although we have done nothing wrong ourselves, we find ourselves sucked into supporting, or at least not challenging, the evil designs of others. They need us to agree with them and passively support their nefarious purposes. They need us, as passive bystanders, to add weight of some kind to whatever evil design they are planning against other individuals. The fact that it is not us planning or thinking evil about another does not let us off the hook. If we do not stand up to evil when we see it, we are allowing that evil to flourish and so we must share the guilt.
I am sure most of my readers who have been following this blog can think of examples of occasions in the Church where real evil is attempted in a group by two or three individuals, aided and abetted by others who do not stand up to the perpetrators and challenge what is going on. There are many stories I hear about, not recorded in the public domain, where such colluding with evil is being practised. In a committee of eight people, what do we say about the five who say nothing in order not to rock the boat and upset those with a hidden, or not so hidden, agenda? Colluding with evil, as I describe it, is infecting and corrupting even church members and their leaders. The ones who collude are possibly unaware of the evil that they are enabling. Because they are part of a group, their individual conscience is in some way disconnected. It is only personal evil for which they ever feel responsible. The need for each person to accept individual responsibility for the actions of the whole, is sadly not well understood in church settings. ‘Evil flourishes when good people do nothing’.
One of the greatest challenges to speaking up against evil being done in the churches, is the level of personal investment each member has in their job. For example, clergy in the C of E often have a salary, tied accommodation and membership of a pension scheme. This is at risk if you speak up against the flow. Bad enough to lose this as a single person, but what about risking the future of your dependents too, if you say anything?
Ironically a non-stipendiary may have more power, particularly if their services are critical to the running of the church, but probably not.
Even ordinary members of a congregation have a position of sorts. Years ago I recall sitting on a subcommittee of a PCC. The vicar was in attendance briefly and then had to leave. Suffice to say, the entire tone of the meeting changed entirely. Things not said were suddenly said. Why did these same people change? Because they no longer had to manage their own standing with the boss.
Can we change these group dynamics? I should add that they are similar in other walks of life and not confined to the church.
One thing we can do individually, is lessen are dependency (particularly economically) on out church hierarchy. It seems to me that young and not-so-young ordinands are sucked naively into the System without considering carefully these matters. For example, knowing what we know now about the Church of England, which person, being honest with themselves, would join afresh now?
The early church had leaders who were self-supporting financially. Yes I know this is a tall order, but look at the upside. At worst look at the downside of being completely unable to say anything because you don’t want to put yourself and family out on the streets if you say anything.
Non clergy should also look carefully at their less tangible dependency. A wise pastor once told me to hold the reigns of my (then) sub-ministry lightly. It was good advice.
Though I would hesitate to use the word ‘evil’ as that seems very strong another way that people can become part of a system that fails others, as Steve rightly says both in the church and outside it, is by taking on employee roles that they know they lack the skill to do professionally.
Though he seems like a genuinely decent person anyone having received correspondence from the new Director of the NST may wonder if the ever changing job history in his CV is due to the fact that he waits until it becomes obvious he can’t do the job and moves on. Lacking self awareness of our abilities and colleagues not challenging poor performance plays a huge part in not allowing others to rceive the best care.
From my personal contact with Alex I would say he is very able. He listens well, grasps the full impact of misconduct, and takes what action he can. Given that he has the forces of the Church with their reputation managers and lawyers ranged against him, it must be very difficult to achieve results. It appears that we have not received the review of Lambeth Palace in its original format for this very reason. We have heard from ISB that they too are hampered by the Church. This shows how difficult it is to act against the full force of those in the Church who will take whatever action is necessary to negate any action which improves
safeguarding however immoral it may be. It is always difficult to act against those who are powerful. This does not mean that those who do so are not able. It is only when you are viewed as a danger to the status quo, that you will start to feel the extent of the dangerous forces ranged against you. I have felt them and suffered as a result. Carry on Alex, we are behind you.
We’ve been provided, in the last few days, with an outstanding example of someone with the courage to speak out against evil in the face of enormous pressure to keep silent. It’s a pity that the Archbishops of Canterbury and York left it to a sports presenter to lead the way. As far as I know they haven’t even joined the protests, though they have far less to lose than Lineker has. The Scottish Primus, on the other hand, has issued a statement on the government’s (probably illegal) new anti-immigration policy which shows a real compassion and passion for justice.
Stephen writes that sin has a way of attaching itself to groups of people and eventually corrupting the entire network. Sadly, that seems to be increasingly happening to the Church of England. It would be interesting to hear what’s happening with other denominations.
I confess to knowing almost nothing about football, but the clash with Lineker has been a fascinating illustration of the tectonic plates of power politics and influence at work.
You could almost believe that Lineker is bigger than the BBC. They completely underestimated the reach of his influence, and their misjudgment (one of a series) appears to have backfired badly on them.
The existential threat to the BBC, is the loss of the Licence Fee, a potential threat largely in the Government’s gift to continue or withdraw. Actually it’s not that simple but there is a threat there. That’s broadly why they tried to censure the pundit.
The archbishops, on the other hand, have some power but hardly any influence or (these days) reach. Whatever they say tends to go badly for them. If they call out social injustice, thousands call out their hypocrisy for not getting their own houses in order. If they go left, they accentuate the risk of disestablishment. In the unlikely event of them moving to the right wing, the few votes they were getting would be lost for some of the blatantly unchristian policies being rolled out. Lineker is certainly a lot bigger than them, which perfectly illustrates how lost and diminished, the established Church is.
Excellent points from you and Ms Fife. The question is whether the Church’s influence has faded recently. You both mention the BBC. In 1926 the then archbishop, Davidson, prepared a broadcast pleading for reconciliation during the General Strike. Davidson was probably mindful of the way in which successive archbishops of Westminster had stolen a march on Lambeth during major industrial disputes, leaving a perception that the Church was a ramp for the rich and powerful.
Reith, who was then trying to get the government to give the company a charter, refused to broadcast it. It is thought that he was ‘encouraged’ by Baldwin to form that view. The decision to silence Davidson was indicative of the paltry influence the Church then possessed. How much more paltry it is now.
You are both quite right. Not only does the Church not have anything to say, it would seem, but it cannot say it without being called out for its hypocrisy over the many skeletons rattling in its own closet. When the Church recently tried to do the right thing over the history of slavery, albeit in a rather tokenistic manner, it was slated by many of its ‘natural supporters’, but it also offended many on the ground. For example, I was told yesterday the announcement that £100m would be made available coincided with a plea by one cash-strapped Lincolnshire benefice for more ‘stewardship’ money: the dissonance was noted, including by some on very limited incomes, to the considerable embarrassment of the parish. I often think the Church is its most effective enemy.
This is a profound article Stephen reaching into our responsibilities for right thought,word and action. It points the way to playing a part in the bigger picture through forgiveness of personal sin. Then we can work for good as part of the whole.
Is this illustrated in the parable about taking the ‘beam out of thine eye;and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.’?
It is easier said than done and needs much time of soul searching and reflection I am finding!