No, non, niet - no idea!

"Who was responsible for ethical compliance?" I've just been watching the evidence of the News of the World's lawyer, Tom Crone, to the Leveson Inquiry. When asked that question, he seemed totally stumped, and in the end came up lamely with, "The Chief Executive, I suppose," (i.e. James Murdoch). When it was pointed out that the CEO had notional responsibility for everything, he responded that his own role he considered to be litigation compliance for articles. It seemed to me disturbing that it emerged that neither the legal department nor anyone else in a newspaper was responsible for the morality of what it publishes - disturbing and symptomatic. I'm hoping that the Inquiry will have the effect of shifting the press from unethical towards ethical journalism.

I gather that a new expression has entered the language. It's "doing a Clegg" and means something like going AWOL. It of course arises from the deputy prime minister's conspicuous absence from his boss's side when he triumphantly reported his "NO" to the cheering/jeering House of Commons. Strictly speaking David Cameron did not veto the Merkozy plan; he didn't forbid or block it. He just opted the UK out. Still it made good press, echoing nicely President de Gaulle's "NON" to Britain's entry into the EEC in 1967. Now that was a veto. We had to wait until his fall before applying again and becoming a member in 1973. One can only hope that our PM doesn't follow that other theatrical "NO", or rather "NIET"-sayer, Nikita Khrushchev's habit of banging his shoe on the table to emphasize his immovability. So unEnglish!

I've recently read an essay by the distinguished Nobel Laureate, Professor Amartya Sen, entitled Violence and Civil Society (in CAM 64) in which he argues that conflict is not best solved by state-sanctioned force. He carefully examines the commonly perceived factors giving rise to violence, such as class, poverty and religion. But they aren't the whole story.

There were two passages which struck me: "For example, appeals to country and nationality played a rousing role in the immensely bloody war in Europe between 1914 and 1918, and a shared religious background did nothing to stop the Germans, the British and the French from tearing each other apart. Yet, today, the Germans, the French and the British mix with each other in peace and tranquillity and sit together to decide what to do in their continent without reaching for their guns." Well, that was the vision behind the EU! Quite important we don't forget it.

Then there was this: "Democracy is more than a collection of specific institutions, such as balloting and elections - it is also dialogue, freedom of information and unrestricted discussion. These are also the central features of civil paths to peace." For some reason this put me in mind of the Occupy camp in the heart of that least transparent of places, the City of London, outside St Paul's Cathedral.

I've been asked why the Falconer "Commission" has taken longer to come out than expected. The answer is, I have no idea. I don't think it's because they got wind of something I'd written in anticipation  - I'm not that important or that vain, I hope. I imagine it's a matter of waiting until the serious news clears out of the way to leave it room for maximum publicity.

In this context, I found Amartya Sen's comment on what he calls "the solitarist approach to human identity" (which sees human beings as members of just one group, defined solely by their native civilisation, or religion etc) illuminating: "The solitarist approach is an excellent way of misunderstanding (my italics) nearly everyone in the world. The same person can be, without contradiction, of Asian origin, a Christian, a socialist, a woman, a jazz musician, a doctor, and one who believes that the most important problem in the world today is how to make South Africa the cricket champion of the world." I doubt whether the professor knows such a person, but it's a point well made. To assume that one factor in somebody controls all they think and do is dumb. We are not machines; we're complex individuals trying to live together.

The Blame Game

I think it's time for a new campaign, with the working title "Praise not blame" - better suggestions welcome. I lie in bed and listen to the news. Have you noticed how much of it is about people blaming others? Sports journalists blame Martin Johnson for England's performance in the Rugby World Cup and his job is on the line. The Home Secretary pins the blame on Brodie Clark, head of the Border Force, for relaxing immigration controls too much in the summer. Michael Jackson's fans and a Californian jury blame his doctor for his death. Devon and Somerset Police are en route to blame Taunton Rugby Club for the terrible M5 crash. Poor care of the elderly is blamed on hard-pressed NHS staff. All of us blame the bankers for the recession. At least, some of us blame the Labour government for their prodigal husbandry of our resources. The present government is lining up the euro-zone as the guilty party in our flat-lining economy. The summer riots were blamed on a "feral underclass". The media seems to be fuelled by blame stories and, of course, it feeds them. I dare to wager that one of the questions every reporter and interviewer will ask whenever something goes wrong is, "And who do you think is responsible for this?" Who's to blame? And of course in hot pursuit comes the lawyer urging legal action.

Daytime TV in particular is peppered with adverts from "accident" lawyers. You know the sort of thing. "There I was at work, carrying a box, when I tripped over a cable on the floor. I bruised my nose and smashed my glasses and was off work for three weeks. Kenge and Carboys were great. They got me £3000 in damages - and it cost me absolutely nothing." "Kenge and Carboys - specialist accident solicitors - guaranteed no cost. If you've had an accident at work, ring freephone number 0800..." Of course it does cost - a lot - and the lawyers on both sides make a lot of money, from the employer, or their insurers (who are also paid by that and other firms), thus increasing the industry's costs. All because some silly person didn't look where they were going. I've heard of people suing councils when they've tripped over uneven paving stones and suing British Rail when they slipped on a wet platform. The fact is accidents do happen. They just do.

"local initiatives" such as this sponsored walk in aid of MND

Instead of looking for someone to blame, shouldn't we be praising? For example, shouldn't we be celebrating that fact that we have a good transport system, that we don't have to walk on roads of mud, that we have local councils who maintain our roads and pavements and take away all our excessive waste? Shouldn't we be praising our amazing free-at-the-point-of-need emergency services, the paramedics who come out 24/7 to pick and patch us up; our 24-hour Accident and Emergency departments who treat even obnoxious binge drinkers? Shouldn't our news channels be filled with items about people like Bill Gates supporting Aids relief with his billions, and local initiatives such as Street Pastors, volunteers who patrol town centres to come alongside and help young (and not so young) pubbers and clubbers rolling out in the early hours greatly the worse for wear? The good thing, I have to confess, about the next couple of weeks is that we are occasionally shown items about projects supported by Children in Need.  Wouldn't it be good if our news focused on such things all year round? There are plenty of good news stories around. 

Manchester - The Mustard Tree at work

Let's cultivate our taste-buds so that we prefer praise to blame. I don't know if "blame" is the same as Jesus meant by "judge", when he told us not to judge. I think it was about having a critical spirit, so there's relevance about what he said next: "For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you." 


So here's my first item of praiseworthy news in my Praise not Blame campaign! Good news from Manchester. You'd be welcome to send links to other good news stories. I want to break this cycle of negativity which seems so to have captured our national psyche. Life is good! 


Life's goodness shouldn't be news, in the sense that it shouldn't come as a surprise to us. However it appears that it is news at the moment. Let's celebrate it.


And how about this for a novel idea? Instead of us all taking part in the Blame Game, why not let someone who gets something wrong say, "I'm sorry. I made a mistake there. I'll take responsibility"? Like, sadly, to give him his due, Graeme Knowles, the Dean of St Paul's.

Doors open at a cost

 By now St Paul's Cathedral should have opened its doors and allowed worshippers in to a service - and presumably tourists to try to recoup some of its lost revenue from a week of closure. It's been a sad episode, and sadly it isn't over yet, as I read that the church authorities are joining with the City of London Authority to seek a court injunction to evict the protest camp from its land. I heard Mr Fraser of the CLA talking about them obstructing the highway. Ludgate Hill is the only through road in the vicinity and is on the other side of a thumping great cathedral from the tents.

What is sad is that the Dean and Chapter have been in such awe of both the lawyers and the Health and Safety firm they employ. The H&S people tell them it's not safe to keep the cathedral open, and instead of talking about how safety could be preserved they lock the doors - only to find a few days later that there was quite a straightforward solution after all. Create a firebreak next to the walls! Now apparently their lawyers have advised them not to talk to the protestors before they get to court. What interesting advice! Somewhat contrary to Jesus' advocacy of negotiation: "Come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison." 


There's a witty but sad cartoon in today's Guardian by Steve Bell, which will no doubt give delight to those who take every opportunity to attack faith. It does reflect the popular perception that the church tends to side with the rulers of this world. There is of course a dilemma for any church "rendering to Caesar the things that are Caesar's", let alone the established church of a country, against following the example of its founder who was a friend of the alienated and sinners and not of the establishment.


Eventually last night I was moved to write to the Dean and his fellow clergy:
Dear Dean and Chapter

   I'm a retired country vicar and not much interested in church politics, but I want to say how glad I am at the news that St Paul's is going to unlock its doors tomorrow. The closed doors have been a symbol that has spoken more loudly than many thousand words.  I am sure others have observed the irony of the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent words in Harare in the context of the parable of the wedding feast: "You know very well, dear brothers and sisters, what it means to have doors locked in your faces by those who claim the names of Christians and Anglicans. But... the Lord proclaims that he has set before us an open door that no-one can shut. It is the door of his promise, the door of his mercy, and the door into the feast of his kingdom."  That's the message that clergy throughout the country preach Sunday by Sunday, and so to see the great west doors of London's cathedral locked trumpeted a dreadful denial of our words.

  I am sorry that Canon Fraser has felt it necessary to resign, as it seems to presage an impending attempt to evict the protest camp through the law courts in conjunction with the civil authorities.  He undoubtedly says uncomfortable and controversial things, not all of which I agree with, but he has earned credibility with those who have no faith in the 'establishment'.  I sincerely hope that the church authorities will not lend their support to what will be viewed as an attack on peaceful protest and expression of free speech by the powers-that-be.  No doubt there are many generous benefactors to St Paul's within the City, but that should not restrain the church from prophetic detachment.  I suspect that refusing to take part in legal action will be a far more eloquent gesture than organising a debate of many words.

    I join with many in praying for your wisdom and courage in these challenging circumstances.

        Yours sincerely 

Sadly, the Bishop of London has muscled in on the "evict the protesters" coalition. However, lest you think all in the C of E Establishment support the St Paul's line, there's a pithy blog-post from one of our local bishops, Alan Wilson, worth a read: Bishop on shutting St Paul's: "... do they have the stomach to engage in the real world at the crest of a tidal race between people, money and power, or are they just overgrown public schoolboys playing indoor games in their own self-important Tourist Disneyland?"

There's an awful irony in the timing of this whole mismanaged fiasco, in that it has completely overshadowed the Reasonable Faith tour of Professor William Craig Lane which ended on Wednesday in Manchester in a debate with Professor Peter Atkins, and was remarkable for the refusal by Richard Dawkins to a debate in Oxford. Craig Lane seems to be one of the Christians with whom atheists would rather not debate; so respect to those who were ready to defend their corner. But what a shame it is that some rather unusual and important debates should have been pushed off even the religious columns by a less than glorious piece of news - which sadly promises to run and run. Someone must be rubbing his grubby little hands in glee. Happily, he won't have the last word. Hallowe'en is just the prelude to All Saints' Day!

Locking up the church

©National Portrait Gallery

When I was ordained my late godfather passed on to me an engraving by an unknown artist of the Cambridge priest and don, Charles Simeon (1759-1836), who came to real faith through the process of examining his conscience before taking communion as a student at King's. It used to hang above my desk as a reminder, among other things, of the cost of being faithful to the Christian gospel.  

After graduation he was ordained and appointed as curate-in-charge of Holy Trinity Church in the centre of Cambridge. The congregation was none too pleased to have an enthusiastic preacher to challenge their comfortableness: "They showed their displeasure toward Simeon by not attending and locking the small doors of their pews (which most churches had at the time). At times, they even locked the doors of the church to prevent Simeon from holding additional services. Simeon persevered, however, and remained rector of the parish for 54 years, gradually winning over his parishioners and making a great impact that reached well beyond Cambridge" (Anglican Library).

  

Another of my heroes is the obscure Welsh curate, Daniel Rowlands (1713-1790), whom I first came across on a TEAR Fund study week in West Wales. He discovered the good news of a loving welcoming God while he was curate to his brother in Llangeitho, a village between Aberaeron and Aberystwyth. It completely radicalised his life and his preaching, to hear which people came flocking in their thousands from all over Wales. Oddly the church authorities did not approve, not least because he didn't care where he preached. After a few years the Bishop of St Davids revoked his licence on a Sunday as he began to preach. Rowlands took the congregation out to the churchyard and preached his sermon there. However, "the deed was done. Rowlands was shut out of the Church of England, and an immense number of his people all over Wales followed him. A breach was made in the walls of the Established Church which will probably never be healed. As long as the world stands, the Church of England in Wales will never get over the injury done to it by the preposterous and stupid revocation of Daniel Rowlands' licence" (Bishop J C Ryle, 1869).

So what are we to make of a church today locking its doors? Of course I'm thinking of St Paul's Cathedral, which has been presented with a real conundrum. As the Dean, Graeme Knowles, announces on its website:

"Welcome to St Paul's Cathedral

We welcome all those who come through our doors - as worshippers and pilgrims, or as visitors and sightseers from London, the United Kingdom and the whole world.

The Right Reverend Graeme Knowles, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral"

  

It's an important building and a huge tourist attraction. Its description on Google reads "St Paul's is a lasting monument to the glory of God and a symbol of the hope, resilience and strength of the city of London and the United Kingdom." My friends in London are divided about the rights and wrongs of locking the doors. 

The Dean and Chapter (Cathedral clergy)'s official statement seems based round this paragraph: "The Health, Safety and Fire officers have pointed out that access to and from the Cathedral is seriously limited. With so many stoves and fires and lots of different types of fuel around, there is a clear fire hazard. Then there is the public health aspect which speaks for itself. The dangers relate not just to Cathedral staff and visitors but are a potential hazard to those encamped themselves." Under John Humphrys' cross-examination, their spokesman, the Rev Rob Marshall, (Listen here: Today programme), was remarkably unconvincing. "You do seem to be dodging around"(JH). Looking at the pictures it does seem that the main steps to the west where everyone goes in and out are not in the least impeded by the encampment. 

The conundrum of course is deeper than health and safety. Does the cathedral give the appearance of approval to the protest by tolerating it, or does it express solidarity with the "city" businesses where it ministers by pressurizing for it to end? Incidentally, as Humphrys was quick to point out, St Paul's is a major business itself. It seems to have chosen the latter. I'm sad that the decision has been dressed up in the disguise of Health and Safety, which is hardly convincing. 

It's a shame that the protest has been dubbed as "anti-capitalist", and to a degree that's how the "Occupy Wall Street" movement regards itself. However, it seems to me that the St Paul's grouping includes a major strand of protest against inequality, the 99% suffering because of the decisions of the immune 1%. The notion that polite conversations between clerics and city financiers and politicians might change things is a trifle naïve. 

As for locking a church, it's certainly far from unknown round the country, on the grounds of security and the fear of theft and vandalism. I think it's a shame. Certainly in our parish we had one church open 24 hours a day and another during the hours of daylight. Yes, we had men of the road sleeping in church premises; and yes, we had occasional acts of vandalism, but the symbolism of having open doors outweighed all that. I have to admit we didn't have priceless treasures on show. As for closing the doors and abandoning services, that seems to me exceptionally sad. What was that about "a symbol of ... hope, resilience and strength"? What about the glory of God? However, a friend of mine who's spent time there has reminded me, "God probably doesn't mind doing without the evensong in St Paul's for a while. He is busy mixing and mingling in the conversations outside."

Ironically, in his recent visit to Harare where he met and challenged the powers that be in the person of Robert Mugabe, before 15,000 Africans packed into a stadium, Archbishop Rowan Williams said, "You know very well, dear brothers and sisters, what it means to have doors locked in your faces by those who claim the names of Christians and Anglicans. But... the Lord proclaims that he has set before us an open door that no-one can shut. It is the door of his promise, the door of his mercy, and the door into the feast of his kingdom." (Archbishop's sermon in Zimbabwe) Yes! That is the most important statement we can make with a church door.