Why I don’t believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic lobster!

One of the best things about being part of a church like the Church of England is that we are an organisation with a long history, through which many norms and structures of organisation have developed.  One of the worst things about being part of a church like the Church of England is that we are an organisation with a long history, through which many norms and structures of organisation have developed!

It is inevitable that when people come together they need structures of organisation to be able to relate both internally and externally.   In addition there is much regulation relating to employment, the use of trust funds and a plethora of other legislation relating to organisations operating in a liberal democracy.

The norms and structures of the church, coupled with the requirements of legislation, become the structures which support and enable our mission and ministry.  They are like a skeleton which enables the body of Christ to function, to move and to have a shape.  Yet skeletons come in two distinct types – exoskeletons (like lobsters) which are obvious and protective and endoskeletons (like you and I have) which remain hidden, thus enabling relationships to be developed with the substance and not with the structures.

As I live within our church and consider how we relate to our communities, it seems to me that we have developed an exoskeleton.  So much of our time is invested in sustaining the structures, the norms and the legislative requirements.  People in parishes give hours and hours of their time to servicing the institution of the church and, at times, become passionate about defending it.  We expend much of our ‘church related’ energy to raising money to service the institution.  When people contact the church about ‘hatching, matching and dispatching’  they frequently encounter the rules and regulations attached to these ministries and sometimes they are put off exploring further into our faith by this shell of institution.

Yet we are called to be witnesses to a kingdom which is about the fruits of knowing God through his spirit of love, forgiveness and life.  These are things which cannot of their nature be institutionalised.  Indeed you can read the gospels as a radical attack on the type of institutionalise religion which lives within an exoskeleton and so becomes exclusive.

Our structures only make sense when they give us the shape and strength to be the Easter people of our vocation.  Such a people have to live with the vulnerability of love offered to the world.  The more we protect ourselves with the armour of institution, then the further we move away from reflecting the crucified Christ.

So we have a problem – we cannot avoid having our structures and we cannot avoid having to put time and energy to meeting the legislative requirements of a modern democracy.  But what we can do is to keep reminding ourselves that we are not a lobster – our purpose is to be exposed to the world and to offer ourselves as agents of a God who reacted so  powerfully against the institutionalised religion which frustrated his mission.  We can aviod developing new structures which perpetuate the notion of institution before mission.  We can also look at how we shape and develop our structures to ensure that we are making the best gospel use of the time and energy which people give to the church.

Sometimes just naming a problem is all that we need to do to work against it.     So I am adding a line to the creed – “I do not believe in one holy, catholic and apostolic lobster” and, as an agent of the institution, I really need reminding of this daily,

Invest your tuppence wisely in the bank!

Life is never going to be quite the same again for those of us who were brought up on the solemn advice given to Michael Banks “If you invest your tuppence wisely in the bank, safe and sound, soon that tuppence, safely invested in the bank, will compound! And you’ll achieve that sense of conquest, as your affluence expands! In the hands of the directors, who invest as propriety demands!” Whilst Michael Banks was but a character in the film ‘Mary Poppins’, that fictional advice captured a common sentiment, namely that our banks were solid and wise institutions upon which trust and confidence could be built.

In just a matter of weeks we have witnessed the collapse not just of the international banking system, but also of the trust and confidence which that system had built up over generations.  In the real economy that breach of trust is beginning to have a devastating impact on jobs, families and communities. Now trust and confidence have been replaced by guarantees offered by the Government, bringing for us all a very different relationship with our bank.

Trust and confidence are the stuff of relationships – between banks, within businesses, with customers, between friends, in families and for lovers – and they are precious commodities.  The banking system appears to have sacrificed these precious commodities for the sake of maximising their profits.  It is going to take time for all this to unravel, but before the banks can regain our trust, they will need to find a way of repenting of their folly.  In fact they need our forgiveness.  They need us all to offer that precious human attitude which enables us to find the future when our trust has been betrayed and confidence lost.  As Desmond Tutu puts it, there is no future without forgiveness.

But can we forgive institutions such as banks?   Well perhaps this is where something the Christian faith has discovered over the centuries may help – forgiveness is not cheap.  It requires recognition of wrongs done and the harm caused, with a desire for a different future.  To rebuild trust, there would need to be a soul-searching reflection on what is driving the banking sector – excess profit for shareholders or service to the whole economy?  If the banks can’t engage in a process of repentance so as to rebuild our trust and confidence, then we had better all start singing, Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious….!

This post was from an article which I submitted to The Cleethorpes Chronicle

The Power to be Wrong

Well after some weeks off writing this blog, I feel it is time to get back to it. Thank you to all those who have been prompting me so to do.

At a very gloomy time for news, for me a bright spot has been the success of the group of retired Gurkhas in their fight for the right to settle in Britain. Leaving aside the immigration issues, the story is  a very good example of a reality that being in power and having the support of lawyers officials etc., does not always mean that you are right.  Here the government were wrongly advised and thank God for the impartiality of the courts.  But does it always have to entail litigation?

We have developed a culture  where it has become acceptable to be just inside the law.  Such a culture pervades government, business and even the voluntary sector.  It enables those in power to sit very likely to the needs of the powerless or to upholding what is right, because they know that, in the main, the powerless do not have the resources to champion what is right. Only the well resourced can take the risk of challenging the powerful, for if the powerful are in the end deemed to be just on the right side of what is lawful, then the  financial consequences for the powerless can be disastrous.

The Gurkhas have been able to wage a very public campaign, but how many other instances are there of people with  power and position, supported by lawyers, assuming they can do what they like because they are just inside the law?  Those of us with power need to be certain that our first motivation is to do what is right, rather than what it is expedient.  At times there will be those who will prompt the powerful to see what they can get away with, but the world is a better place when powerful are prepared to be wrong in the eyes of those driven by expedience, for the sake of doing what is right.

As we look at the turmoil on the global financial markets, how much of this is being driven by those who have lived just inside the regulations and just inside the law, justifying their risks because they can get away with them for short term advantage, rather than starting from a desire to do what is right for the long term.

The power to be wrong in the face of expedience, may, in the long-term, lead to a far healthier future -  especially when you are dealing with people.  When we work with people doing what is right builds trust – doing what we can get away with, erodes it – will the Gurkhas ever trust the government again?