Notes for Reflection

September 7                          NOTES FOR REFLECTION

Texts: Ezekiel 33:7-11; Romans 13:8-14; Matthew 18:15-20

Theme:  It seems to me that the stand-out favourite this week is "The Works of Darkness", or some variation on that theme.  The other side of the coin might suggest something like "Confronting Sin in Ourselves and Our Faith Communities", but that might sound too, well, confrontational for a Sunday morning.

Introduction.  Whether we like it or not (and few of us do) the readings make it clear that we as a community of faith have a responsibility before God, not only for our own sins as individuals, but also for the sins of other members of the community.  We begin this uncomfortable subject with the prophet Ezekiel, given the role of "watchman" for the people.  His task is to call erring members of the people of God to "turn from their wicked ways".  If he does that, he is not responsible for the sins of those who fail to heed the call: if he does not, he is responsible.  St Paul exhorts the faith community at Rome to "lay aside the works of darkness": and the gospel passage lays down, in some detail, a disciplinary procedure to be followed by a community of faith where it is alleged that a member of that community is at fault.

Background.  I must confess immediately that I bought and read The Book this week (clue, it's by Nicky Hager.)  I thought I knew enough about its contents to brace myself before starting to read it, but my bracing proved hopelessly inadequate.  The stories it laid out in agonising detail painted a far worse picture of corruption and depravity than I had expected.  There was not even a pretence at a worthy cause, no claim to be on the side of truth and justice, no attempt to wear the mask of a whistle-blower defending the public's right to know and risking all for that noble cause.  In fact, the overall impression is one of deceit and concealment : apart from Cameron Slater himself who makes the fabled Narcissus look more like a Violet with a genetic tendency to shrink, all the other principal members of this blogging coven go to extraordinary lengths to hide their identities behind multiple aliases and pseudonyms.  I found particularly galling Mr Slater's use of quotations from the Book of Proverbs to send threatening messages to some of his targets.

One thing that I did find striking is how often their worst abuses were planned and executed at night.  Some of the emails were sent back and forth at three or four o'clock in the morning.  This week's passage from Romans could hardly be more apt.  LOL, as we tech-savvy people say these days.  In my elderly ignorance I had thought that LOL stood for "lots of love", which did seem a little out of place in such messages: I now know that it stands for "laugh out loud", which is equally inappropriate, as there is never anything the least bit funny in the content.  Perhaps "COL" (for "crying out loud") would make more sense.  Anyway, if we want a case study to illustrate what St Paul's term "the works of darkness" means in the modern world we need look no further than Nicky Hager's book.

But of course works of darkness are not unknown inside the Church, as has become all too painfully clear over the last two decades or so.  And perhaps what has caused the greatest concern and outrage has been, not just the particular offences of individual priests and religious, but the perceived failure of the Church to deal with the offenders; and here we see the relevance of our first lesson and our gospel passage this week.

The first point to stress is that both readings are directed in-house: they must not be taken as a blue-print for a secular criminal justice system.  What are we to do if a member of our faith community offends against us?  And immediately that question itself should alert us to the need to DO SOMETHING.  But what about turning the other cheek, forgiving seventy-times-seven and so on?  Two points there, I think.  First, suffering in silence, grinning and bearing it, or keeping quiet and hoping for the best are not forms of forgiveness.  To forgive is to do something positive – it is active, not passive.  Secondly, an offence by one member of the Body of Christ affects the whole Body: to have a poisoned toe is to have a poisoned body.

So we are to do something, and the next obvious question is what are we to do?  The gospel passage sets out what seems on its face to be a simple and straightforward procedure.  But as anyone knows who has attempted to carry it out in practice it is far more complicated than that, particularly where the alleged "offence" would constitute criminal offending.  Here we have a classic clash of "cultures", and one which is almost certain to lead to misunderstanding and claims of cover-up.  The Church is not an agency of State, and it is certainly not an adjunct of the Police Force.  The Church in concerned with sin, not crime.  Bear that in mind as you reflect on the following scenario.

Ms Y, in a private conversation with the vicar of the parish of which she is a member, asks the vicar to ensure that Mr X, the co-ordinator and most active member of the parish's team of pastoral visitors, never visits her at home again.  She is reluctant to say more, but says enough to make the vicar suspect that Mr X has said or done something of a sexual nature that has offended Ms Y.  What course of action should the vicar take?  One answer is that he should draw her attention to Matthew 18:15, and leave it to her to go and see Mr X and attempt to sort it out with him.  Hands up if that was your preferred answer.  How would you feel if the priest or bishop subsequently accused of a cover-up said it was up to MS Y to pursue the matter, and as she did not do so she was the one at fault?

That aside, what should the vicar do?  Call in the alleged offender for a chat?  And if he refuses to come and chat?  Or if he comes and chats and vehemently protests his innocence?  What if he takes the opposite approach – he freely confesses that on reflection what he did or said was indeed inappropriate, and that he would go immediately to Ms Y and apologise and ask her forgiveness?  And what if Ms Y refused to meet with him or to accept his apology?  Is she then at fault and Mr X in the clear?   And all this before any question of criminality arises – or any claim for compensation – or any claim against the diocese's profession indemnity policy – or a formal disciplinary process for a breach of the Code of Pastoral Practice.

Only one thing is clear to me.  The Church has a different agenda in these cases to those of the State and the general public.  Our agenda is reconciliation, not retribution: it is driven by a belief that it is truth that sets us free, not cover-up and denial, but that truth is much more likely to emerge within a community of love, acceptance, understanding and forgiveness than one in which turning a blind eye is considered the best option, or one in which lawyers are just a phone-call away.  I suspect that the difficulty we so often get into with dealing with in-house issues is that we have not yet become a true community of faith, and if that is the case no amount of correct procedure and process, however biblical, will be of much use to us.

Ezekiel.  The danger of a passage such as this is that it appears to be addressed to "him" rather than us – in this case to Ezekiel alone, or, at most, to anyone called to be a prophet.  The rest of us can heave a sigh of relief and keep our heads down and our mouths shut.  However, there is no point in God calling Ezekiel to issue a prophetic warning of this kind if there is no concomitant obligation on the rest of the people to listen to the warning and heed it.  So how open are we, both as individuals and as a community of faith, to messages of this kind?  Are we inclined to thank the prophets among us for warning us in time, or are we more inclined to ask them who the hell do they think they are?

Taking It Personally.

• Have you ever challenged any other member of your local faith community over anything done or said by that person, even though you were not the "target" of that behaviour?
• Have you ever been challenged by any other member of your faith community over anything you have said or done, even though that person was not the "target" of your behaviour?
• Have you been aware from time to time of particular conflicts within your faith community?  How well have they been handled?  If you thought they were not being handled well, what would you do about it?
• Do you agree or disagree that personal conflicts between two or more members of your faith community are properly matters of concern to the whole community and should be dealt with for the sake of the whole community?

 

Romans.  I know I should get thoroughly outraged at hackers and other invaders of privacy – as a recovering lawyer, at the very least – but somehow I don't share the modern obsession with personal privacy.  Part of that may be due to my suspicion that I lack anything in my life that could be of interest to anyone else, so I'm rather sad that no one wants to invade my privacy.  For example, I have never taken a photo of myself stark naked, nor do I understand why other people – even those with far more beautiful bodies than mine – should want to take such photos and store them in "The Cloud", whatever that is.  [Didn't it used to be a large inflated rugby-ball-like structure in the Auckland Viaduct or somewhere?)  But reading The Book brought immediately to mind a rather obscure saying of Jesus in the gospels.  Luke's version goes like this: Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known.  Therefore whatever you have heard in the dark will be heard in the light and what you have whispered behind closed doors will be proclaimed from the housetops.  [Just one reason why Mr Slater and his cohorts should spend more time reading the gospels instead of the Book of Proverbs.]  St Paul is surely saying much the same thing in this passage.  

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• Call to mind the collect for purity (page 405 of the Prayer Book).  How would you feel if we had a more modern version: Almighty God, to whom all emails, texts, and tweets are open, all telephone calls are known, and from whom no secrets are hidden?
• Review the last week.  Is there anything you have said, done or thought that you would rather no one else knew about?  Why would you rather they didn't know about it?

 

Matthew.  Surely the key to understanding this passage is the parable that immediately precedes it.  That parable, known as the Parable of the Lost Sheep, is one of the most beloved, isn't it?  It is so warm and reassuring.  But how often do we think through its application to our parish life?  If someone wanders away from the flock do we tell ourselves it's a free world or do we attempt to find that person and seek to bring that person back to the fellowship of the Church?  If someone leaves in a huff, do we mutter under our breath, "good riddance", and breathe a sigh of relief, or do we attempt to win them back?  And if someone offends us do we follow the approach recommended in this passage, or seek to give back double, or just walk away?

 

Taking It Personally.

 

• So what do you do?  Why?
• Is truth or peace and quiet more important to you?  Which is more important to your local faith community?
• Within your own family do you seek to address conflict or ignore it and hope it goes away?
• Do you agree or disagree that you have a responsibility to the offender to challenge his or her behaviour so that he or she might grow in godliness?  Are you your brother's/sister's "watchman"?