I am reading Bring up the Bodies, Hilary Mantel's sequel to the brilliant Wolf Hall and was struck by two lines back in the first chapter:
We think time cannot touch the dead, but it touches their monuments, leaving them snub-nosed and stub-fingered from the accidents and attrition of time. (p.10)
But what has been done can never be undone and the passing of time puts everyone and everything into a more realistic perspective. Even the most glorious monuments crumble as the glories and catastrophes of the past are reappraised in the light of subsequent events – the future being contingent on what has brought us to that particular place. Time never stands still and even death doesn't spare us from judgement.
Later Thomas Cromwell is reading his papers and is cross to see that manipulation of the grain market is allowing 'some little lordling' to promote 'famine for fat profit':
Two years ago, at Southwark, seven Londoners were crushed to death in fighting for a dole of bread. It is a shame to England that the king's subjects should starve. (p.28)
Plus ca change, we might say. Yet the same mechanisms that operated in the 1530s can still be seen today. People – and what motivates them for power, greed or mere survival – remain the same as time marches on and human ingenuity progresses.
So, this last week we were confronted by (a) a government that can find billions of pounds for banks and Olympics, but employs a firm to find sick people fit for work in order to bring down the welfare costs, and (b) a debate going on in some UK cities and towns about whether or not to accept local authority grants to help provide basic food for poor and vulnerable people though charitable food banks. (Does accepting the money make such banks an institutional feature for the future and compromise the charities or churches involved?)
It is a shame to England – and notions of civilisation – that our national priorities look like this. We are used to sending money to help poor people in developing world countries. Now we have (as, in fact, we always did have) very poor people in our own communities dependent for food on local charitable donations. Those running the food banks deserve enormous credit, as do the shops and food outlets that are letting surplus goods be offered to them. But, we have to ask what sort of a society this is and how we would answer to the cry of the Old Testament prophets about such priorities.
But, if shame is being doled out, the Church of England must hang its head once again. I know from experience in my last diocese and my current diocese that the safeguarding of young and vulnerable people is taken with great seriousness, that the disasters of the past should not and could not happen again. (Since coming to Bradford I have given considerable attention to these matters and had already arranged – as just one part of our strategy – for my senior team to spend a day in September working through a range of scenarios in order to check our systems and responses. This will be led by a retired detective and a lawyer. The focus is not on protecting the diocese, but on ensuring the best process and outcome for potential survivors/victims.)
However, the report on the disaster that is Chichester rightly makes recommendations for the whole Church of England. One or two of them raise questions that are not covered by the report and might have implications not yet considered, but that is for further appraisal in the coming weeks. The significant point about the Chichester report is the recognition that the safeguarding failures are largely the result of institutional incoherence, a failure of leadership and structural fragmentation.
One thing this suggests is that any diocese needs clear authority structures, clear processes and communications, clear structural consistency and coherence, and clear integrity of purpose. If this is not so, matters such as safeguarding will never be considered or administered consistently across the piece. This is what Monty Python called 'the bleeding obvious'. But, the church is dogged by people who bemoan talk about structures, infrastructure and policies as if administration was somehow 'unspiritual'. The Chichester business brings it starkly home that where the structures are not well-oiled everything else becomes vulnerable.
Yesterday I was writing a piece about 'renouncing evil' for publication later. The Chichester report – and the responses by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Southwell & Nottingham – names the behaviour of abusive people – particularly clergy – for what it is.
The new Bishop of Chichester is a good man and he hasn't even started yet. My prayers are for him as he starts to sort out the mess he has inherited – a mess that has caused suffering to abused people and rightly put the spotlight back onto how the Church of England fulfils its vocation: to speak for the voiceless, to bring the Jesus of the Gospels to people, to facilitate reconciliation and healing, to demonstrate the power of realism, repentance and forgiveness.
But, first, the shame has to be experienced and named.
Posted with Blogsy
September 2, 2012 at 6:27 pm
I think the Chichester report could also ask some questions about the structures by which clergy are employed. I note they recommend clergy write up all visits and conversations with parishioners, so we are in a way talking of the professionalisation of the clergy. It begs the question as to whether it is any longer appropriate or helpful for clergy to be given such open ended and vague job descriptions along the lines of ‘we want you to do everything, relate to everybody and be available 24/7′. Is it not time for the church to at least have a more open conversation about appropriate and professional expectations and boundaries between work, home, parish, relationships etc? How can anyone be held accountable without clarity of function and role, or be given a role which is humanly impossible? Where parishioners want the vicar to be their best friend but he/she has a totally different expectation of that relationship is a recipe for disaster at least these days. That is where boundaries can get crossed, in Chichester’s case, with disastrous consequences. All other professions have had to go down this path.
I wonder what you think Nick about this?
September 2, 2012 at 7:04 pm
“[A] government that can find billions of pounds for banks and Olympics, but employs a firm to find sick people fit for work in order to bring down the welfare costs”.
Fair enough up to a point, but don’t forget that the present Government was lumbered with the Olympics by the previous one. In the circumstances, what could they do? Say “sod off” to the IOC and cancel the whole thing? I think not.
For my part, I have a strong suspicion that the net economic effect of the Olympics will prove to be negative and that we shouldn’t have gone there in the first place. But it’s a very difficult calculation to make; and it’s no good blaming Cameron & Co because the responsible parties were Livingstone and Blair.
September 2, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Simon, I think that is the way we are going anyway. I think this would bring some gains, but also some losses. But your point is well made.
September 3, 2012 at 9:20 am
What does “writing up all conversations” mean? And how would it help, bearing in mind that what really matters is generally unspoken until it’s too late, that much is confidential and that those who want to abuse the system will not write up what they want to leave out?
What am I misunderstanding?
I’m glad you speak out against poverty and what we officially do about it. Too few in your position do.
September 3, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Erika, you are not misunderstanding anything! The notion that clergy should keep records (partly for their own better working – and remembering -but also for their potential protection) is not a bad one. But of itself it won’t stop the problem.
September 8, 2012 at 7:30 am
Nick, Yesterday I was talking to a lawyer linked to key figures in the Baby P story, who highlighted that which is known to many close to the child protection problem. A major problem in that case was that Social Workers were spending overmuch time writing up notes on computers and skimping/ under prioritising the key work of learning/understanding what was going on.
I once heard EF Schumacher’s mentor Leopoldo Kohr speak about
“appropriate” size. He used the example of the snail with its shell that grows in a coiling manner. There comes a point when one more turn doubles its size and renders it utterly immobile. It is a useful warning in many spheres.
We need “enough” record keeping. Over-much comes at the price of a major degradation of key function. I am sure you are sensitive to that risk but the illustration is a good reminder that often comes back to mind – which is testimony to the skill of a good teacher.
September 8, 2012 at 9:15 am
Firstly thank you for being clear and open about Chichester. I have read the report and am very pleased that the Archbishop has intervened in such a clear and positive way to bring this out into the open. I agree that clear structures are really important – not because they will always stop everyone who wants to do someting bad from doing it, but they reduce the likeliihood of it being easily possible, and make it clear that this behaviour is unacceptable, which makes it more likely to be spotted or reported and dealt with proactively and properly.
I don’t think parishoners ‘wanting vicars to be their best friends’ and the related boundary issues have anything to do with child abuse? It is perfectly possible for clergy to have healthy, friendly pastoral relationships with parishoners, without them being tempted to abuse people! Research (and common sense) has shown that there are things clergy need to do to stay healthy and sane, such as working in teams, having good spiritual direction, taking their days off and retreats, having heathy family and friendships, not becoming isolated etc etc. These are the things we have to be encouraging and the authority structures should keep an eye on these issues.
Secondly, I do think there are moral and ethical issues around poverty and Foodbanks, but being just about to open one in a few weeks time, I believe they are great catalysts for the Church to revive its ‘hands on’ sharing of the good news, and in our area the area has been seized upon by churches and Christians, is acting as a focal point in communities whose church schools and churches are working together to collect for harvest for us, etc etc. So, there will be benefits all round in communities where a Foodbank opens.