When correct is not enough...
- James Rice
- Dec 24, 2024
- 5 min read
Though Welby failed to ensure safeguarding was done, he didn't really have a reason to interfere with the police investigation as he was a witness; Stephen Cottrell legally did all he could against David Tudor but still failed in getting rid of him; and then we have the silence in the face of 'Christian Nationalism' and ChristoFascism in America.
Welby's failure to safeguard was a failure of joined up thinking, he assumed the police would deal with it and left the church idle, not to mention his leaving speech; Stephen legally did all he could but should legal be the limit of Church thinking? and whilst keeping silent about the situation in America is easy and arguable safer for the church as an institution, does it make it right.
Thoughtfulness
Transcendence
Boldness
These are what we will need in the year to come.
Breaking paradigms
The Church is besieged on all sides, it doesn't matter if that is right or wrong; we are meant to be better than the 'world' so to be worse or only be equal to it simply is a failing. Keeping our heads down is both the easy and smart move but that isn't enough:
'“The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. '
'For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.'
'Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted.'
Its time to be bold and foolish, to be loud but thoughtful;
we must understand the ramifications of are actions and inaction, we must speak out when there is no legal way forward, and we must be willing to speak against those of unsound doctrine but not lower ourselves to their level.
It is hard to know where the line is, so many of those who consider themselves Christian are doing things that are unchristian, and there are those who call themselves 'christian' who use the term for political capital.
The problem with this is its hard to tell who is Christian, or 'christian', and how best to interact with them. One should try to help and correct a Christian but denounce or ignore the christian only in name. Its easy for us to denounce 'COINs' when they are organization but the line is far harder when it comes to individual as we don't know what was in their hearts.
The other problem ofcourse is facing the crisis of abuse and poor handling of it, not only in the C of E but elsewhere in the Church. Whilst we must be bold in speaking out, we must also be swift to accept blame; not only because we are Christians and we must understand that any form of response can cause repeated trauma to those who were abused. There are times and places for discussing the hows, whys, and even explanatory factors for the failures of the clergy but to do so in a forum outside of the Christian community risks causing offence.
Is it fair that we should accept blame for what happened? Yes!
The Church is the body of Christ; and if a member of the body strays and causes harm, the whole body is guilty. If a man punches someone you don't say that only his hand is guilty, you say he is guilty as a whole. As such we are all responsible; one might use my logic to blame Christ himself and whilst I disagree, there is no doubt that the people not of the Church are doing so and bringing shame unto him.
If the Church brings shame to Christ what is the point of it?
We must accept our part in it, as the Israelites of old did when a crime was committed and no one was found responsible for it. Then they made sacrifices and offerings to atone as a community, but they atoned before God. There is no atonement for us outside of Christ and we have brought shame to him, and made need of him crucified once again!
As individuals we may have not been involved but as a whole we were and we must make amends and help the healing process.
We must also acknowledge that we must have a complicated relationship with the legal system; Stephen allowed the legal system to hold him back, he could have spoken out and faced legal ramifications but they would have been civil ones. The Church in the face of a new reign of Trump will have a difficult problem as we are told in the epistles to obey the authorities and he will be exactly that; how his actions will play out is unclear but there is a difference between doing what is right and being unruly.
The prophet Daniel is a clear example of this, he was a councilor to Nebuchadnezzar, a man who took the Israelites into slavery: He upheld his spiritual principals and did what was right, only breaking the law when he prayed to God when Nebuchadnezzar ordered against it. Another biblical figure to look to is Tobit, though a deuterocanonical canonical figure he remains pertinent; Tobit buried the bodies of those of his kin in a time when his tribe was in exile and many were executed with their bodies cast outside the city's walls. Whilst other Israelites ate the foods of the gentiles he did not, refusing much like Daniel. He gave food to the poor, and gave them clothes from his own supplies. Ultimately for burying the dead he was forced to flee for his life and his assets were seized. Whilst his actions brought wrath down upon him from the authorities, he followed the law and did what was right.
What form of religious obedience might be needed in the time to come is uncertain but Tobit's example shows a clear paradigm that should be followed; caring for the needy, even when its not popular and showing respect to those who have none.
His was not a disobedience but a form of righteousness that surpassed the injustices around him, he was not unruly but pure in his dedication. This is something we cannot lose, not to the world or anything else.
Final Words
I don't claim wisdom in this; I know I have and probably will be too harsh in dealing with some issues, my influence in the world is too weak to face legal matters, and I won't know the full ramifications of my words.
The one thing I do know is this:
'In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.'