Writing the two last blog posts has left me feeling fairly dispirited. The reason for this is that I have been writing about the enormous harm perpetrated by named and unnamed representatives of the church. I have to ask, in thinking about such things as sexual abuse, as to where can true integrity be found. If when outwardly good people do evil things, did they ever in fact possess this integrity? Was it a case of a good person going bad having done many good things or was there a badness from the beginning and the perpetrator simply pretended to be good. It is also a judgement that has to be made about institutions as well. Where can we find individuals and churches which can demand our loyalty and trust?

I spoke in the last blog about the way that the clergy of the Diocese of Gloucester wanted to believe in the integrity of the Bishop and effectively allowed their assessment of what was going on to be clouded by a collective state of denial. You could say that we were all too much identified with the diocese and its leader to be able to face up to any unpleasant facts that would upset our sense of belonging. The comments made by the judge at Peter Ball’s trial are pertinent and apt. He said:
‘Thus it is that, in addition to the damage done to individual victims by your abuse of power, the established Church, by its inability, for a long time, to recognise the truth of much of what was being said against you, itself has suffered damage to its reputation and its collective sense of itself as a just and compassionate body. This too is a consequence of your misconduct.’

The judge was thus talking about the way the damage from the crimes escalated outwards from the victims to the church at large. The first damage beyond the victims was to the church’s reputation and standing in society. At another level the church has been damaged in its own internal sense of what it is. Those of us who work for the church have wanted to depend on a sense of its fundamental institutional soundness. Just as a healthy child is encouraged to grow up with strong self-esteem and a sense of her fundamental goodness, so those who work for the church want to believe that the church is fundamentally good. We have in the church as the judge put it, ‘a collective sense of (it)self as a just and compassionate body.’ That collective sense boosts the effectiveness of our work and the standing and trust that we receive from society. But now that trust and standing can no longer be taken as a given. The misconduct of one person has in no small way corrupted and contaminated the whole. That is the nature of membership of corporate bodies; when one sins, all experience the fall-out and the damage to the reputation of the whole. Every member of the church sadly shares to some extent in the shame revealed through this trial.

In writing this I am reminded of the long journey that the German and Japanese people had to make to be rehabilitated after the last war. Both countries were demilitarised and even today British troops are stationed in Germany. I am no expert in what has been going on to make reparations for the last war by these nations but it would appear to be true to say that both nations have played a full part in helping the world community to flourish economically. In summary they have each overcome their narrow nationalism to serve the world as a full part of the community of nations. Even if Japan may still be guilty of supressing aspects of its wartime history, both nations have fully cooperated with others, acting with considerable humility and making their rehabilitation possible over the 70 years since the war ended.

What must the Church do? I feel that the example of Germany and Japan need to be remembered in dealing with the present crisis over Bishop Ball. This is a tale, not of one man failing in his vows and responsibilities, but of an institution that has to deal with an identified cancer which threatens other organs. This is not a case of one bad apple in a barrel because as the judge pointed out, other issues in the church now need to be faced and reflected upon. This is why the Archbishop of Canterbury has so quickly set up an enquiry. There are indeed many aspects to this saga, including the collusion of all the people who knew Bishop Ball from the beginning, those who heard the accusations and rumours but felt that the institution was more important than those rumours. The issue of the church’s strange and inadequate way of dealing with sexual issues is also on the line in this sad episode. That such a culture of flagellation and ritual nakedness could even have been imagined in a church setting points to a deeply unhealthy pre-history of sexual ethics in some Christian circles. The Church needs to show that it is prepared humbly to face up to a whole variety of questions about its past and its way of doing things. Above all it must be prepared to show that it is interested in its integrity. It must show that that all its representatives are men and women who follow not their narrow self-interest or even the interests of the institution they serve, but they are followers of the master, Jesus Christ. That may take a very long time.

I have sometimes pondered the alternatives to facing up to the weaknesses of an institution, the church, which appears to find it difficult to retain its grasp on complete health and integrity. It would be tempting simply to abandon it and set off on one’s own to search for God for oneself. Sadly we cannot in this case journey alone. We need to carry on the struggle to find others with whom we can share and whom we can trust. The idea of church is not something that is either possible or easy to abandon. The word church, ‘ecclesia’, literally means those who are called out of a wider group. God of course talks to individuals but he nearly always seems to bring them into contact with others. Although, as we have seen in this blog, the church is sometimes destructive, damaging and full of human vanity, there does not seem to be any real viable alternatives to seeking out others with whom to travel. We may be betrayed, let down or even damaged but we can never completely abandon the search for others with whom to travel. Somehow we have to pick ourselves up and carry on, though a little humbler and wiser than before.

STOP PRESS. After a lengthy silence from Nigel Davies, the blogmaster of the Brentwood blog, I rung him on his mobile. It appears that his computer connection and his phone have become unusable for over a month. I suggested that there might be dirty tricks about but he was not able to confirm this. He is planning to post another update on Tuesday, so I shall be able to inform my readers on what is going on the Essex front. As I have said many times on this blog, the report(s) to be made by John Langlois will be of great interest and importance for understanding church abuse wherever it occurs. This report should be with us very soon as well as the second approved attempt at an investigation by two ‘friendly’ Pentecostal ministers. It will be instructive to compare the two accounts if both are published.

On a day (October 7th) when we are to hear the sentence given to the former Bishop of Gloucester for historic sexual abuse and misconduct in public office, it is a moment to reflect on the full horror of this evil in the church. In Catholic, Protestant or Free Church environments over the decades some children and young people have suffered gravely. Their suffering and the enormous pain which they have endured is important in itself for us to understand. But the sexual abuse of young people is also like a cancer which goes far beyond its victims to corrupt and desensitise institutions where it takes place and is not properly dealt with. I do have a personal interest in the Gloucester saga. I was a Vicar in that diocese at the time when Bishop Peter arrived and later received a phone call from my Rural Dean to let me know that he had resigned after the police caution. I have in other words to reflect on my own feelings at the time as this event unfolded. I must confess that in 1993 I felt that there was an untold story in the background which was not being told, but I thought that this story, when it was fully revealed, would be favourable in some way to the Bishop. In other words I was, like the majority of the clergy in the diocese at the time, simply unable to process the fact that a man of God had been so completely unable to care for young people in his charge.

Over recent days I have found an important report* which is an independent enquiry into the sexual and physical abuse of children that took place in the Congo in a school for missionary children in the 50s, 60s and 70s. The particular school at the centre of the investigation was run by the Presbyterian Church of the USA. It is a story which has been repeated in many places in our society. Young children were abused by some who were there to care for them and their stories, although shared at the time, were not believed. The document is notable for its thoroughness and the way that it discusses the whole issue of child sexual abuse within the church. It also lays down the criteria which allowed the committee to accept the credibility of the reported abuse. Also recorded is the frustration of the committee over the fact that many confidential personnel files in the States of potential relevance to the enquiry had been shredded or were unavailable. They were forced to rely on witnesses, i.e. the abused children and their fellow pupils, to establish the facts. For the reasons they give, they were satisfied that they had uncovered the factual truth. One prolific perpetrator was guilty of systematic sexual abuse both in the Congo and in the States for 40 years until his death in 1999. The report does not give his name but we gather that he was an amateur hypnotist. Although he had no professional qualifications in this area, he was allowed to practice his technique on children who were sick. Another detail that was given to the report, which contributed to the reluctance of the authorities in the church to challenge him, was that he was charismatic and very good at fundraising when he returned to the States and spoke in local churches, seeking financial support for the Presbyterian mission. When the accusations began to surface in the late 90s, it is notable that his wife, who no doubt would have had her suspicions of inappropriate contact with young girls, was his fiercest defender. The girls, she claimed, had misunderstood his touch or in one case of one child, was guilty of initiating it.

The detailed examination of the way that one particular individual was identified and his interactions with the church and mission board carefully examined, do not concern us here. What is important about this report, which makes it worthy of attention, is that it sets out a full account of good practice connected with the needs of sexually abused children in churches that was up-to-date when it was written in 2002. No one can be allowed to play down the devastating effects of sexual abuse on children, particularly when they are in a situation of receiving no protection from their own parents. For the abused the typical symptoms are set out, flashbacks, guilt, self-absorption and the destruction of healthy self-esteem. It needs hardly to be said that churches should never be places where such damaging behaviour is possible. An abused child who does not receive any help, will quite possibly grow up to be an adult who cannot achieve intimacy and trust in another. It is hard to imagine a greater deprivation for anybody to experience than to lose the ability to form deep relationships.

Another interesting issue which this report touches on is the way that retired missionaries themselves later responded to the incontrovertible evidence of sexual abuse within the school. This after all had been set up to educate and protect their own vulnerable children and those of their own colleagues. Some of them, like the clergy of the Gloucester diocese, were not able to believe the facts and others wanted to trivialise them. The old adage, ‘forgive and forget’ was trotted out by some. Even from the perspective of 2002 this particular piece of advice was shown by the report to be completely and utterly inadequate as a way of dealing with matters of such gravity and seriousness.

The hierarchical nature of the Presbyterian Church in the States meant that some processes of discipline could be put into effect against erring employees. At least one other sexual offender had been identified and sent back home from Africa. The national leaders were however not able to prevent the main identified abuser from practising his crimes over 40 years, even though they took some steps to support and compensate some of the victims when the crimes eventually became public knowledge. If a denomination with overseeing powers like the Presbyterian Church finds it difficult to regulate its employees, imagine how much more difficult it is for due process to be observed in churches with a structure which lacks any oversight. This is the situation for places like Peniel Church in Brentwood. Vulnerable individuals, especially women and children, will always be in great danger where there is no place of appeal against a tyrannical pastor. The historic credible claim of rape at Peniel only became heard because of the concerted efforts of an independent individual, Nigel Davies. By his providing a platform to help all those who have suffered the horrors of that dysfunctional church regime, the voice of the rape victim could be heard. The Internet, the law and the court of public opinion are now, thankfully, providing a much more effective platform for those who hitherto have found it difficult to receive justice amid attitudes that simply cannot face up to the horror of sexual abuse of children in churches. That behaviour, as readers of this blog will know, is just one of the manifestations of Christian abuse, albeit the worst.

*http://www.pcusa.org/media/uploads/ici/pdfs/ici-report.pdf

One of the most unpleasant things we can witness is a group of people filled with righteous indignation expressing their hatred and passion for a targeted group or individual. The lynch mob, as we might describe it, has persuaded itself that it is taking a stand for goodness and truth in the face of depravity and wickedness. What we are in fact witnessing is the desire of people with little self-knowledge projecting evil from within themselves onto a scapegoat figure. The person they condemn may well be guilty of a terrible crime or they may just be different. Whatever is the case, the profoundly disturbing way that people sometimes express their hate for the outsider does little to enhance moral values in any community. Sometimes of course this vengeful crowd is completely wrong in identifying a particular target for their venom. Most of us will remember the way a paediatrician was vilified by a vindictive mob because somebody thought that the title of her profession meant that she was a paedophile.

A book that I am reading refers to the difference between external and internal faith. The author describes the kind of church where particular styles of external faith are much prized. By external faith we are talking about outward aspects of behaviour and belief which visible to the outsider. The book is written in the context of conservative protestant America, but we can still recognise some of these aspects of external faith in church life in our own situation. The book is in fact primarily a study of pastors who are, the author claims, sociopathic. I will have more to say on this dysfunctional quality among church leaders on another occasion. In brief sociopathic behaviour will involve a coercive use of power over a congregation which is entirely devoted to extracting maximum benefit for the pastor himself. To gain this control the pastor has to gain complete authority over the flock and control their outward attitudes and behaviours. In the first place the congregation will have absorbed from frequent preaching the idea that the Bible teaches the final authority of the minister or pastor. Words like loyalty and obedience to the pastor will loom large in this kind of church. But there are three further techniques which are used by a power hungry minister to consolidate his control. The first is to appeal to the fears of the Christians in the pew. The second is to create a strong sense of moral outrage against some despised groups of people outside the church. The third is to create an image of purity and holiness that is expressed in visible ways.

To return to the first of these. It is not difficult to create a climate of fear in the congregation when you are constantly mentioning or hinting at the topic of eternal damnation. When people are genuinely frightened, they will look for a place of safety. In a typical conservative congregation that place of safety will be at the feet of a power seeking minister. He will be seen as having the keys of heaven and hell. Fear, in other words has handed him an enormous power to be used in whatever way he thinks fit. In the case of a pastor with little professional integrity, this power may be grotesquely misused to manipulate and control the vulnerable in the congregation. It is no coincidence that the sexual abuse of women and children has been a recurring issue in not a few congregations. Although child sexual abuse is reported in congregations of every kind, the independent churches, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses and other non-denominational groups seem to have particular problems in this area. It is not difficult to suggest that excessive power being handed to a single individual, here the pastor, will sometimes be the prelude to unhealthy sexual dynamics in a congregation. Whatever else is true, it is clear that the tactic of exploiting fear by a pastor within his flock will do little to enhance the overall spiritual health of the people in that church.

An encouragement of moral outrage among ordinary Christian against the evil ‘other’ is also something that is sadly widespread in many churches. I have written in previous posts about my puzzlement as to why the gay issue should be a red line issue in some Christian thinking. But it would be in the interest of a power-seeking pastor to get his people to feel strongly indignant about a despised group beyond the congregation. Hitler acquired a lot of his power from his creation of an enemy for the German people to hate, the Jews. Any organisation will always run well when it has identified a task which brings everyone together. A church always runs well when there is a harvest supper or similar event to organise. Boosting morale by getting everyone to act together will always work even when the task identified is that of hating a despised outsider. A deliberate incitement of moral outrage, as we noted at the beginning, can be an extremely effective, even if ugly way of creating a sense of unity. Some newspapers, which shall be nameless, sell many copies purely because they are good at articulating hatred for one group or another. The church, to its shame, also indulges in this kind of behaviour from time to time. Under the banner of hating sin, it welds its members together in a noisy demonstration of righteous indignation while creating feelings of smugness and self-satisfaction at the same time.

The third part of creating an external and shallow Christian identity is to make rules of behaviour which make your group different to everyone else. Some of these Christian life-style choices found in the States do not occur in this country. We do not normally insist on particular styles of dress for women or ban certain kinds of music as being unsuitable for Christian ears. Nevertheless some of the conservative teachings about how to behave towards women and children within the family must create a distinct and arguably harmful ethos. Disciplining children is an area of family life which has to be worked out by each set of parents. If parents allow this part of their family life, for example, to be dictated to by so-called biblical injunctions rather than by their good sense together with their natural instincts, much suffering can be created. In particular some Christian parents, even in Britain are persuaded against all their parental instincts to use a paddle to beat their children. This is what the Bible (the book of Proverbs) appears to say.

Fear, moral outrage and adopting an external ‘biblical’ lifestyle of some kind are the three ways that an authoritarian pastor can exercise effective control over a congregation. Each of these have very little to do with the internal transformation which is of far greater importance for the Christian journey. Any understanding of what it means to be a Christian would normally focus, not on external things, but on such issues as the inner struggle against sin and selfishness as well as allowing ourselves to gain a greater self-knowledge. Such self-knowledge would in turn be rooted and grounded in love and access to the power of the Spirit. The task of the Christian is to grow in inner wisdom, understanding and personal holiness. For a pastor, who should be teaching such things, to seek to control his people by frightening them is morally despicable, just as it is of dubious value harking on constantly about who are the enemies of the church. Even if such fears and a sense of outrage were to be justified, they would be no substitute for a profound engagement with the world of the spirit, a world which seeks to change us and make us always new.

I have been reading a book about the way that power and success affects the brain. The basic idea of the book is that when we succeed in mastering a difficult challenge, the pleasure centres in our brain are stimulated and we receive a shot of dopamine. Dopamine is in fact involved in all pleasurable activities from sexual involvement to aesthetic experience. In the case of overcoming a difficult or challenging problem, we find ourselves not only feeling pleasure but also more confident and competent to succeed in further difficult tasks. As we experience success in these activities so we develop a more confident personality. The winner effect is the power and confidence that accrue to the successful person who overcomes the challenges set before him/her.

Clearly the experience of success is both enjoyable and beneficial for a human being, both psychologically and physically. It has a positive effect on health and even wards off some of the illnesses which shorten life. This fits into some research I mentioned on the blog by Sir Michael Marmot on the longevity of civil servants. He discovered that those at the top of the hierarchies lived longer and had better health than those lower down in the system. After excluding all the usual caveats, he concluded that the power of success and the ability to make decisions enhanced health and human flourishing. Those who spent all their time obeying orders and following instructions often encountered a level of stress that impacted good health and well-being.

This kind of research is not good news for the bulk of the population who live by taking orders from others. These are among the people that Chris constantly reminds us of in places like sweatshops, old people’s homes, domestic service and countless other places of exploitation. The stress of being at the beck and call of others is a harsh reality for many, even the majority in society. Those of us who are able to identify bullying and abuse in the workplace and in society generally have a duty to fight against it wherever possible and certainly never become complacent about it as an ever-present evil around us.

This blog post is however not going to be about those who struggle in society, except indirectly. I want to describe further what the book has to say about those who succeed and are identified as being at the top of their particular calling. For many such people there is acclaim and honour among their fellow workers and the satisfaction of achievement. Individuals, such as Nobel Prize winners, can be shown to live longer and in better health than the rest of us. The moment of real triumph, whenever it occurred in their life, somehow stimulated the brain in such a way that their future health was given a considerable boost. Also, the fortunate few who make a living through their creativity rather than just through the exercise of muscles and the ability to follow instructions, will probably also benefit from a similar boost to their health. I have noticed that musicians and artists often seem to go on into extreme old age. The same could be said for actors and authors. Clearly there are benefits in living creative lives or reaching the top of the pyramid.

The book, The Winner Effect, then explores what can be seen to be a sting in the tail. If success creates a dopamine rush in the brain, then it is possible for an individual to become an addict to this sensation. It is, for example, one thing to write a bestselling novel which everyone raves about: it is another thing to achieve such a success a second time. There are many people who achieve success perhaps too early in their lives. At a time of immaturity they were given exposure to a great deal of attention and, to put it bluntly, it turns their head. This is the fate of many young celebrities and artists. Those with little real or lasting talent are particularly vulnerable to the empty void of life after their great moment. We see breakdown, addiction and endless searching for new experiences in many who achieved acclaim early in their lives to repeat what they once had. A few artists, such as Paul McCartney, seem to have sufficient talent to carry them right through their lives. They manage to avoid the pitfalls of wealth and success and, even more strikingly, they manage to bring up children who also appear to be balanced and gifted. One of the big challenges for anyone who receives large amounts of money for their talents, is persuading their children that there has to be hard work in their lives if it is to be a worthwhile one.

I finally arrive at the way this book, The Winner Effect, touches on our theme of Christian abuse. It is a fact that adulation and success are sometimes considered desirable ambitions among a certain section of so-called Christian leadership. Some preachers desire to be a big name. In other words some people who preach the gospel want to be celebrities and be treated in this way by their followers. Their name on a programme is guaranteed to attract large numbers of people to attend big events and rallies. We have had reason to question what such celebrity culture in a Christian setting does to both the speaker and those who flock to listen to them. In particular the charismatic culture quite often seems to place its speakers on a very high pedestal. It is not hard to see how a constant exposure to this kind of celebrity treatment will create a constant appetite for the dopamine rush in the brain – in short an addiction. This is what the book warns us about. Too much exposure to success and achievement, particularly when young, is bad for you. This will apply in the Christian world as much as in any other. Being constantly told that you are important and gifted is not the way to achieve a balanced self-appraisal of your gifts. The person with abilities needs, of course, to have appreciation shown. But as with anything, too much appreciation will damage and unbalance their lives.

Popular psychology is often warning us against telling children too much that they are wonderful all the time. This is sometimes practised as a way of trying to boost their self-esteem. Many primary schools used to ban competitive sports on the grounds that some children would come last. Most of us know that there is a balance to be struck in the task of promoting excellence and not allowing children to feel defeated and unappreciated. The opposite is also true. We should never be party to a church culture which pushes individuals towards a godlike status. It is bad for them and it is very bad for us. Realistic appreciation of people’s abilities, together with a recognition of their limitations, is part of the way that we learn to appreciate one another as well as support one another. St Paul recognised that the Holy Spirit was given in a variety of ways to individuals. We each serve the whole, using the gifts that we have. Let us appreciate the things we can do as well as the things that we can’t, appreciating the fact other people may have abilities that we do not possess. May all of us avoid the addiction to the kind of adulation that comes as a result of the need for some to create idols and celebrities. It is not for nothing that the Bible speaks about the feet of clay that exist at the base of idols.

After the rant I made several days ago on the subject of popular Christian music, it might seem surprising that I return to the subject to make a positive appreciation of other kinds of music in church. I was then objecting to the popular music which Chris describes as giving him brain fever and also leaving behind in the brain a disturbing beat. In short I object to a certain style of church music because it leaves behind all the symptoms of being exposed to excessive noise. I suggested also that the bedrock of Christian spirituality was silence. Anything, including popular music, which prevents an immersion into such silence was going to be unhelpful, to say the least, for Christian prayer.

I do in fact believe that there is music within the Christian tradition which can still the mind and prepare it to enter more effectively into this sphere of silence. The problem is that for many people this music is completely unknown. The religious music of the past, whether Gregorian chant or the sacred music of the Elizabethan age is not exactly at the top of the Pops. It is, as we say, an acquired taste. There is however one genre of music that does seem to appeal to a wide number of people when they encounter it and also helps them to become still as a prelude to prayer. I refer to the music of Taizé. This music written by Jacques Berthier picks up the melodies of a variety of periods and helps those who sing and those who listen to become still. The music’s power comes partly from the way that the same musical phrase is repeated over and over again. Because there are different accompaniments to the melody line of the song, the repetition never becomes boring. These melodies are specially composed or taken from one of a number of musical traditions in Christian Europe. They do seems to have appeal for almost everyone who hears them.

The music of Taizé would perhaps be used far more if our services were a little less wordy and more focussed on silence. The problem for most congregations is that those who conduct worship do not want to allow any empty space to occur in the service. Thus we have a quick movement from a prayer to a reading and then to a hymn. There is little opportunity for silent reflection in most of our church services. For myself Gregorian chant is a suitable introduction to a time of silence and also it does not intrude on attempts to meditate and think quietly about the will of God for our lives. Others may well be moved and assisted in their contemplative worship by the soaring notes of Tudor polyphony. Whatever style is preferred, there are a variety of church music styles which do in fact assist an individual in coming to a place of peace and prayer.

It is not easy to talk about these ‘classical’ styles of Christian music without being thought a cultural snob. But, as I have said, the more accessible music obtains its popularity by, arguably, only appealing to shallow sentiment or the attraction of an incessant drum beat. It is hard, as I suggested before, not to be affected by a loud noise of Christian popular music. The sound is often overwhelming but it is hard to see how this kind of beat music will ever assist an individual in the task of silent prayer. One wants to move from singing or listening to a piece of music so that the individual is led towards silence. There can be no silence within when there is the echo of frenetic drumbeat inside one’s head. The brain fever which Chris speaks about is never going to be conducive to still contemplation.

I am one of those people fortunate enough to have been brought up with the contemplative style of Christian music around me from a very early age. I have thus had the opportunity to enjoy and to be immersed in styles of music which I believe help in the process of stilling the heart and mind towards a consideration of the spiritual dimension. Music is a little bit like religious art in the sense that it communicates spiritual things without the use of words and logical concepts. I have returned to this theme of the spiritual being beyond the verbal many times in the blog as it is a point that is close to my heart. As the mystics would say, God is beyond words and human concepts, even being itself. If we are to know anything about him at all, we have to approach God through the assistance of these non-verbal media. These point to spiritual reality but they never contain it. Art and music are tantalisingly indirect in the way that they point us to what can never be known fully on this side of the grave.

The people who do theology in the way that I have learnt, will always prefer never to define mystery or spiritual reality. We can only go so far with words and explanations. In our imaginations we come to a threshold of a building in which we believe that God dwells. To enter further, to know God as he truly is, we have to use other means of access. One will be the human capacity to love. This is a capacity given to every person on the planet. Alongside this means of approach towards the unknowable God, we have the tools of music and art. These always have to be used carefully and sensitively so that in the best way possible their power can be utilised in this search for the unknown. But, as this blog post has made clear, the journey towards God can often utilise the tools of music which draws the individual into silent prayer. This may one of any number of styles, perhaps Gregorian chant or the music of Taizé. Such music, as I have explained above, will never be used to fill the brain with sensation, but will always help to still and quieten the mind so that it can kneel before God in love and adoration.

Many years ago in London there seemed to be large numbers of immigrants of European extraction who had found their way to our capital because of wars and revolutions. It was said of such people that they were the proud speakers of many languages but in some cases they could not speak any of them well. You can imagine a child learning one language at his mother’s knee and then moving to a new country where it was necessary to learn yet another language to complete an already damaged education. Then there might be further disruption, more languages before finally arriving in Britain. We might envy a knowledge of several languages but on reflection we can see that there are considerable advantages in knowing just one language but knowing it well.

I begin this post with this reflection as I was talking to someone yesterday about the problems of communication on the topic of healing. Many people have picked up some exotic ways of talking about the process of healing. They have an Internet knowledge of medical science alongside other ideas which we might describe as alternative or New Age. They may also have some understanding of Christian ideas, including the importance of prayer and the issue of dealing with guilt. Talking to such people one may find that they easily switch in and out of this variety of cultures with the result that communication becomes quite difficult. You could say that they are trying to speak several languages at once. The person I was speaking to agreed with me when I said that it was very important to use one single language when discussing something with another person. It may be possible to introduce ideas from other cultures but not before there has been established an implicit agreement as to which is the main language in play. It is not unreasonable for a Christian minister to insist that he or she will want to use Christian language as the dominant means of communication.

Over the decades I myself have read many books which introduced me to alternative ways of understanding health issues. Some of these books have deepened my understanding and cultural insight into many aspects of human illness and disease. When faced with the distress in another person, I sometimes will run through in my mind the different models of understanding what I am looking at. But whatever I think about a person and what may be the cause of their problem, I will try to find one model in which to communicate with them. If a word or an idea is introduced from another cultural context, I will attempt to translate it into the language or dominant cultural setting in which I am trying to work. This attempt to control the discourse is not some power game that I am playing with another. It is merely a recognition that in our post-modern age, many people are trying to master an understanding of something while at the same time they are juggling with a wide variety of concepts from different sources. They end up with no clarity: they are like people who speak five languages but all of them badly.

In the previous blog post I was challenged for appearing to criticise the ideas of Jeremy Corbyn. In my response, I hope I made it clear that I was criticising, not his actual ideas, but the language in which these ideas were expressed. When any ideas are developed within a particular and, arguably, a narrow framework of culture, they will end up being articulated using a closed system of discourse. Families likewise often evolve their own words and expressions to denote everyday things. This is a private language and has to be interpreted when other people beyond the family hear it. Every profession develops their system of pet acronyms which are incomprehensible to people outside that charmed world. Sometimes language is used deliberately to create an in group which effectively keeps out outsiders. Whenever language is used to create barriers, we can say that it is not being used in a healthy way.

In speaking to another person, it is not only helpful but also good manners to ensure that we are using language in a way that they can understand. It is also not unreasonable for us to establish at the start that they should try, as far as possible, not to keep switching into other cultural frameworks, unless it is really necessary. As an example, one might be talking to someone about mental distress. If they were suddenly to introduce the idea of kundalini, then the conversation might well stall at that point. Even if I thought I knew what the word meant, I would have to establish that the other person had the same understanding. I would need to know where and how they have picked up this particular Hindu/New Age concept. That would take time to establish.

I seem to have used up a lot of space in explaining how important I feel it is to use words and language in the same way as another person for understanding to take place. Most of the time when Christians speak, they can assume some common knowledge of Scripture on the part of their fellow Christians. But even here there is still tremendous scope for misunderstandings as the ways we have been taught to use the Bible can vary enormously. Quite often in comments posted on this blog, I realise that an individual is saying something important. The problem for me may be that the way the idea is expressed means that I do not have a quick answer. I simply cannot see a way to respond to the issue raised without using lots of words and explanations of what I mean. In short, two Christians are speaking quite different languages. Communication is made very hard in this situation. My previous blog post was an appeal for us to consider how the truth and the reality of the Christian gospel be translated into a form of language which is in everyday currency among the people of our nation and culture. That is a massive task but it is one that is worth struggling and fighting for. One thing that will not help the cause of Christianity is simply to go on repeating words that some earnest Christians believe are essential to the Christian gospel but which, in fact, are obscure and almost meaningless outside the charmed circle of a particular ‘tribe’ of Christian believers.

Forcing people to use jargon expressions which they do not really understand is never going to help the cause of the Christian gospel. What this blog would plead for is not some instant solution to the problem but recognising the importance for all Christians to develop a greater sensitivity to this issue of language and the meaning of words. We need to understand that words are used not only in accordance to the dictionary definitions but as a way of expressing emotional states and cultural attitudes which go beyond mere words. That subtlety of understanding will always be important. It will always be important for us to express our ideas and convictions but also to hear what others are really saying.

Today (Sunday) the papers are full of speculation about the future of Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party. But there was one sentence that has caught my eye amid all the other reporting. The particular reporter was exploring the implications of the fact that Jeremy Corbyn has had no experience in government. Thus he has not had to face up to the fact that the responsibilities of actual power involve compromise and adjustment to the opinions of other people. In talking about this the reporter said quite simply that Corbyn was more used to addressing compliant adoring crowds of people who greeted him with superstar status. No one in those audiences would be there unless they agreed with his particular strand of socialist rhetoric.

Perhaps my reader has already picked up the connection between this piece of reporting and our theme which explores the area of Christian evangelism and the way that it sometimes becomes involved in abuse. The picture of Corbyn speaking to an uncritical yet adoring audience is of course similar to a description of many evangelistic events up and down the country. The people in these events know the evangelical or charismatic jargon: they respond to all the trigger points in the sermon. It is a sermon which uses an in-house language in the same way as many politicians. In the case of the church you have had to be member for a long time to pick up on all the particular references and language allusions. The success of this language in rousing a self-selected crowd means that for many evangelical preachers, the expressions are never changed, let alone critiqued. In short the language works. Perhaps this is why many of us on the outside find this kind of preaching oppressive and frankly dull. It simply does not use words in a normal way. Religious jargon and political jargon share this in common. Both use language in a way that suits the needs of the group while firmly shutting out the outsider who has not been initiated.

The enthusiasm with which Jeremy Corbyn’s election was announced last week, resembled the excitement of a religious crusade. We can imagine that the people who took part in the various gatherings to celebrate the election were fired by a similar zeal as people in a religious rally. They would have been under the illusion that the few hundred people that were with them celebrating represented the entire nation. Of course it is possible to be convinced that you are on the cusp of a revolution when you bring together the enthusiasm of hard-core believers. It does not look like this on the outside. It looks merely like a huddling together of people who desperately want to believe that they alone have the truth.

The failure of Jeremy Corbyn to speak a language which people beyond hard-line socialists thinking can understand, will mean that his time as head of the Labour Party will probably not be very long. This is not a statement of any personal political persuasion, simply a reflection of the need for any political leader to articulate the beliefs of the people who vote for him. If there is any mismatch between what the leader is saying and the followers are feeling, then these followers will simply look elsewhere. As things stand at present, there is no way that the voting public will find their deepest convictions articulated through hard-core socialist ideas.

What does this say to us about Christian evangelism? I believe that the failure, not only of Christian evangelists, but also of the church generally to get over their message, has something to do with the same mismatch of language and ideas that now exists acutely in the political world around Jeremy Corbyn. I want to state my belief that repeating hard-core slogans, whether in a political or religious context, is never going to be attractive to the bulk of the population. Whatever the enthusiasm of a particular crowd, there is always a massive task to communicate this passion for religious or political truth to a wider population. In responding to this constant challenge, I can here suggest a few ideas that come out of my own experience of preaching and teaching the Christian faith. I personally prefer the milieu, not of the passionate rally, but of a calm meeting of minds through reasoned discussion and listening. For the rest of this post, I want to suggest is that there are arenas of discussion which touch on the lives of everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike. These common areas make communication possible. If a discussion and sharing of ideas can take place, then there is a good chance that some distinctive Christian teaching can be shared and in some case it may convince. In these areas of common human experience, the Christian faith can be seen to touch the needs of everyone, whoever they are.

The first idea that I believe can be discussed by everyone, with or without faith, is that of the future. Everyone thinks about the future, their personal journey or the situation facing the world itself. Any discussion about what is going to happen will draw on a profound reflection of values, inner convictions and priorities, not forgetting our mortality. This can lead to a deep reflection on what life is for and the importance of living a good life. The Christian will bring to the discussion insights about sin, forgiveness and failure, but, as long as the discussion is about the future, the emphasis will be on newness and possibilities for the individual rather than a traditional wallowing in failure. I personally believe that we have a much healthier conversation between Christians and non-Christians when we speak about what God will do for the world and the individual rather than trotting out a series of dogmatic claims about what he has done in the past. Grappling with and understanding doctrines of the atonement are going to be some way down the list of essential ‘truths’. They are needed but not at the beginning of a process.

The second area which is ripe for exploration is to discover what another person thinks is meant by prayer. I am convinced that everybody will pray in some way in certain circumstances, even if much of this prayer is less than adequate from a Christian perspective. Whenever a person prays, in whatever way, they are opening themselves up to something beyond, even if only in a desperate cry for help. It is helpful for everyone to reflect on what this activity might mean in their lives. If it means anything at all, and I believe it does, then there is a process of reflection to be had in examining more carefully what they are doing and what it might be pointing to in terms of unexamined attitudes to a spiritual dimension.

The third area which is common to every human being is the meaning and experience of love. Any act of reflection about love will show that it goes far beyond human reproduction and sentimental attraction. It should not be difficult to help an individual to see that love is perhaps the key, not only to behaviour, but also to the purpose of life itself. For reasons of space I have to leave a lot of the in between stages of this exploration for the reader to fill in themselves.

If Christians are going to communicate to the wider world, they need to recognise the lesson that Jeremy Corbyn is facing at present, namely that they need to speak a language which people understand. The traditional language of evangelism like left-wing politics is cliquey, inbred and unable to reach the vast majority of people. We need to be far more ready to develop means of communication which touch people where they are. Greater minds than mine are working on this all the time, and so the ideas of this blog are only a very small attempt at a contribution. Meanwhile there seem to be far too many Christians around, like ultra-left politicians, who refuse to admit that there are any problems of helping people to understand the deeper meaning and reality of their convictions, in our case the Christian faith. I will say here as I have said before that simply repeating the old, old story is not often going to communicate the Christian message to people today. We need to engage them where they are.

This email was posted to me a couple of days ago and, with the author’s permission, I have included it on the blog together with my response. It is interesting that our blog is the only online resource to comment on this issue in a UK context.

Dear Stephen,
I came across your site whilst searching for anything I could find on ‘damage caused by university Christian union involvement’. Your blog was practically the only result I could find, especially within a UK context.
I wanted first to thank you for sharing your thoughts and research on this subject. Secondly, I am hoping you might be able to point me towards a mature (i.e. not hate-filled online rants!) sharing/online supportive group or such like that you know of, that might help me to understand better and hopefully find some peace from my experience. I am struggling to find anything myself and wonder why there is not more on the net about this as I am sure now having read your blog that I am not alone.
If I may explain in short, my experience is not one of outright abuse but more emotional damage. I’m sure you have received many responses to your blog like my own, but I wanted to share mine in the hope it may continue to help your research.
In the late 1990’s I went to university and became involved in the UCCF affiliated conservative evangelical Christian union, having been placed on a residential floor with majority Christians of an evangelical persuasion, I presume because I happened to mention on my application that I had a Christian faith. At the time I tried to ‘fit in’ and be the right kind of Christian I thought I was meant to be – in fact the message was stronger than that – there was only one Christian – the one espoused by the CU and by UCCF. To say you were a Christian but not live by their ‘basis of faith’ and teaching meant you weren’t actually a Christian and therefore not acceptable.
During my time at university I became more depressed and anxious but didn’t know why. As you say in your post ’42 Students and Christian Unions’, at the time I was looking for a sense of identity and wholeness. The Christian Union seemed to offer absolute certainty and belief, but along with that came high expectations and an absolute commitment to live and ‘be’ a certain kind of person. To question or express doubt or live in a way that was contrary to this meant that you didn’t have enough faith or trust in God, or were not a ‘real’ Christian, and this was unacceptable.
It has been 15 years since I finished university and although I have completely separated myself physically from the evangelical Christian church, the emotional and psychological residue has remained. I have had many ‘laughing it off’ evangelical-bashing conversations with my partner, who has only experienced this strand of Christianity via an Alpha course in a conservative evangelical church (the experience of which he described as intellectually vapid and emotionally manipulative). Most of these conversations have been a way to try to make sense of my mixed feelings of sadness, pain and guilt around my involvement within this strand of Christianity, without any success of pin-pointing the foundations of these feelings or the ability to find any peace about this. Having lost touch with all my CU ‘friends’ and feeling decidedly uneasy about my feelings connected to them, I took to searching the internet to see if I could find anyone else who had shared my experiences. I was surprised to find so little, and then chanced upon your blog. When I read your post on Christian Unions, things suddenly clicked into place. I have felt stupid with having been unable to shake off the pain of those years, but realising that my experience wasn’t an isolated one and I wasn’t just ‘making it up’ – even maybe being able to call it by its displayed characteristics of a cult-like group – has helped me to bring some balm to the emotional residue left by those years.
So, thank you for your writing and thank you for allowing me to share my story. My experience does not go anywhere near the trauma of those who have been subject to physical abuse within the church, but the subtlety of emotional damage is an insidious one that I think goes un-heard and unexpressed, perhaps because people would rather forget and, as I have done, laugh it off, but possibly too because of shame within and around the context of involvement in conservative evangelical organisations like the CU I experienced.
Please feel free to share my story if you think it would help. And if you do know of any groups or online support groups that I could link into to help me put this finally to rest, I would be grateful.
With thanks,
Kirsty.

Dear Kirsty,
You may be surprised to learn that the issue which you have so eloquently described from your time at University is not more talked about or covered. The topic is one that has bothered me right back to my own student days in the 60s. I was never a member of a Christian Union but they could not be ignored as they loomed large in the university Christian scene in Oxford.

Thank you for writing and I hope that you will continue to follow this blog and the small community who are concerned for these important and neglected issues.
Best wishes, Stephen.

Over on the other abuse blog, victimsofmichaelreid.blogspot, there is an interesting and instructive discussion going on. Since I last wrote about Trinity Brentwood, the church have introduced two new ministers to look after things during the extended leave of Peter Linnecar. Unfortunately, for the church, the official website for the church has posted examples of their preaching. This has enabled followers of the blog to do some cheeky irreverent deconstructions of their sermons. No doubt the person who posted the sermons thought that they were in some way encouraging the members of the church. What they have done is to show up the incredible shallowness of the preaching at Trinity Church at present. The main blog poster who has commented on these sermons shows some theological background and is well informed. I have made my own comment as Anonymous 14.19 on the 15th September.

I myself tried to listen to the sermon of one of those parachuted into Trinity, David Shearman. I succeeded in listening to only two minutes before I could bear it no longer. I was therefore grateful to read the commentary and critique of the same sermon by the determined blog contributor who had persevered right through to the end. In my comment on what he said, I complimented him for his stamina in listening to some very painful and unedifying theology. What is the main objection that the anonymous blogger made about sermon preached by David Shearman? Simply stated, the blogger objects to a preacher who believes that to think something or to feel something is the same as receiving direct guidance from God. The sermon was filled with the words ‘I felt’ and this was the basis for the preacher to announce that the will of God for the congregation was contained in his words. Another blogger informed us that DS had preached the identical sermon somewhere else and it had been posted on YouTube. In other words it was the prophetic word of God for two different congregations! Cynics among us might believe that that recycling sermons is likely to be something he does quite often.

Listening in to a sermon away from the context of the church where it is being preached, means that one is removed from the internal dynamics of the congregation. One is also able to observe objectively something of these dynamics. By contrast it is impossible for a member of the congregation who has already surrendered their self-determination and independent thinking process to observe and analyse in this way. Also the position of the preacher within the architecture of the building reinforces the tendency of the vast majority of the congregation to accept his authoritative interpretations of Scripture as being binding on them. It is not difficult for a preacher like David Shearman to become more and more convinced of the truth of his own rhetoric over a period of years. The title of this piece, ‘the Lord laid it on my heart’, although not used in the sermon, is a summary of this kind of subjective, authoritarian but ultimately irrational theology.

David Shearman represents a subjective style of theology which is being shared in churches all over the country. The reason why preachers can continue in this vein for year after year, decade after decade, is simply because nobody who listens has any incentive or desire to challenge them even if they talk palpable nonsense. To say: ‘I feel something therefore I know what God is saying to me’, is unbelievable arrogance not to mention self-delusion. That this kind of preaching is entering once more the severely traumatised congregation of Trinity Brentwood, is bad news in the extreme. It reminds me of a film which explored, in a somewhat humorous vein, the history of an unnamed South American country. In this film a tyrant was overthrown and, almost immediately, the one who organised the coup began behaving in exactly the same way as the tyrant who had been defeated. For Trinity to bring in two people who subscribe to the same independent, unaccountable and arbitrary dispensing of superficial theology is to condemn that institution to continued danger and potential abuse of its members.

The expression, ‘the Lord laid it on my heart’ is a turn of phrase common in the Christian circles which do not hold themselves accountable to others. To be fair, it is a theological stance that is frequently challenged by others in more mainstream, less Pentecostal-type churches. You will find plenty of such ‘biblical’ critique if you search the web. The typical evangelical response and critique is to say that the preacher has to search the scriptures before declaring God’s will for the moment. But the real answer to this kind of theology is not, I believe, an abundance of text quoting, but the training of a mind to understand the wider Christian tradition and to recognise the difference between an idea which comes to us out of the blue and one which is thought through and maybe discussed with others. I refer to the ‘Christian tradition’ not least because I believe that many things that we regard as being new in the church have been explored in some way elsewhere in the world or in the past. In short Christian tradition is a template through which to look at new-fangled ideas. The problem is that most of us occupy too small a segment of this wider tradition and so find this kind of evaluation difficult to do. Tradition and the experience of other Christian cultures will often show how something that is considered the latest ‘word of God’ is not only not new but it may have been tried already and sometimes shown to be heresy or dangerous nonsense.

A second way of challenging subjective theology is to seek the guidance of other preachers and teachers or, in the case of a denomination, some kind of overseer. This is where the problem of independent fellowships is seen to be acute. There are simply no other structures in independent fellowships which might check the power and influence of a self-appointed preacher. People like Michael Reid are indeed dangerous in the same way as dictators. Such people control others without any recourse to law, custom or Parliamentary restraint. Christians must always avoid coming under the influence of any individual who claims to speak in the name of God quite independently and without the guidance of other people to provide some kind of balance or moderation. Such people are quite simply potentially extremely dangerous.

We await the report of John Langlois who, in all the chaos that is engulfing Trinity Brentwood at present, appears to be a figure of sanity and clarity. In a situation which resembles a kind of madhouse, it is good to have at least one person who seems to speak sense and is not caught up with the extraordinary dynamics of this congregation. Let us hope so. My readers can be sure that any progress in this direction will be fully reported and discussed by this blog.

In the past few days a book arrived at my address with no indication of who sent it. The title of the work, Mark of the Beast, inclined me to throw it straight into the rubbish. Then it occurred to me that my intense dislike of the subject matter, a trawling through obscure sections of scripture, needed to be thought through and I have skimmed read it for the purposes of this blog.

What is the book about? It is written by an individual with an intense hatred of the Church of Rome and it is full of biblical quotations which appear to support this venom. It contains a great deal of historical facts, carefully selected to show the heinousness of the Roman church and also how the writers of the Bible knew about events 1000+ years before they happened. The particular crime which most upsets the author is that the Church of Rome changed of the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday. Thus the 10 Commandments have been corrupted by a church council dominated by Rome in the fourth century. Good Christian people can now no longer obey the natural and inerrant command of God. I must confess that it had never occurred to me that this was a problem for most Christians. But for the author of Mark of The Beast it is one more reason to hate the Church of Rome with a degree of considerable pathological dislike.

I refer to a book of this type as religious porn. No doubt there are many other ‘Christian’ books which encourage conspiracy theories and contemptuous loathing for people that they don’t like. Most of the time these books remain in the shadows and you would have to work hard to find one example of such literature unless you are in the right circles. I remember it being said about a Christian bookshop near Swindon that they used to keep copies of contentious books under the counter with brown paper covers. These were generally books describing the worst excesses of demonic behaviour. People wanted to read about cruelty, sexual deviance and other crimes while believing that they were reading Christian literature. To read a claim that the devil was interested in corrupting good Christian people by making them do unspeakable actions was believed to be somehow edifying.

In many ways even to handle a book such as Mark of the Beast is a depressing experience. It is depressing because one is once more encountering the way that a so-called literal reading of the Bible can inspire so much in the way of distasteful attitudes and opinions. The venom that is encouraged through the reading of this book feels a long way from anything resembling Christian attitudes. To build even a small area of Christian belief on Daniel 7 and Revelation 12 to 14 is going to produce a very strange end product. There are many Christians with whom I profoundly disagree but I do not detect inside myself any degree of hatred because of this disagreement. The only thing I feel is a profound sorrow for the victims of aberrant and hate-filled teaching such as found in this terrifying book. People who learn their Christianity within an environment of paranoia and fear do not seem to be in any way liberated by the message of Christ. Of course they will be impressed by an apparent deep knowledge of Scriptures and also a fluency in a knowledge of historical facts. But these are just used to impress. Serious scholars will never encounter this kind of literature and so the parade of ‘facts’ and historical claims in this particular book are never likely to be challenged.

I have no knowledge of the publisher Harvest Time books or the author E.G.White*. This book will be solemnly placed in the refuse with the hope that my copy at least will never be able to corrupt the mind of an individual who wants to learn about Christianity. For me, the overall message is once more brought home as to how difficult it can be for a newcomer to Christianity to find reliable literature through which to continue their search. If this book is typical of what is being handed out to new Christians, then we are seeing the corruption of minds. This is a serious matter. The problem for many mainstream Christians is that they simply do not know about the content of much popular Christian literature in circulation. It is only by a strange event that this book has come into my possession. I do not even know if it is an act of malevolence towards me as an individual or not. Perhaps the sender thought that my opinions are so heretical that I needed to read some ‘good’ Christian literature. I have no idea. What has been aroused in me is once again a great sorrow for those who spend their time reading this kind of religious pornography. I cannot believe that to hate other Christians with such vehemence is ever going to further any expression of the faith.

I would be interested to hear from my readers if they have ever encountered a great concern over Sunday being a day of rest rather than the biblical Sabbath. It is certainly the first time that I have found this idea. But having found it presented to me, it has a certain biblical support and consequently it will act as a focus of obsession for those who want to be more biblical than their neighbours. One conclusion about biblical study has been reinforced for me. It is not a good idea to start trying to find spiritual truth by reading first the passages of Scripture chosen by Ms White. To learn about the will of God, one can do no worse than a study of the words of Jesus. It is also worth studying these same words having carefully absorbed the command ‘Do not be afraid.’ Fear will never have any part in the Christian message, in spite of the earnest efforts of writers like E.F.White and her ilk.

*Ellen G. White in fact is a 19th century writer and a prolific producer of religious tracts. The fact that someone has gone to the trouble of keeping her books in print means that there is still a Christian constituency desiring to keep her ideas alive. To know that these opinions emerge from the 19th century does help to give these ideas some sort of historical context.