Creeds and reconciliation

Justin Welby tweeted:

It's Written on Your Face

Jeannette Sirois for

 the City of Vancouver, 2014

Genuine reconciliation is not only about agreement, but about how we love one another in deep disagreement. @JustinWelby

Which is undoubtedly true and which also raises certain challenges - even accusations - for Christians.

History relates that Christians have been appalling bad at showing compassion to other Christians - never mind to those outside their own walls.

In fact - for all the committed Christians and Christian groups committed to reconciliation - I think there are structural aspects of Christianity which make it very difficult to find ways to "love one another in deep [or any other] disagreement."

Specifically the credal character of Christianity - self-definition and self-authentification by statements of belief - is in practice a mechanism for building walls and making enemies.

Creeds, even fragments of creeds, become the tests by which Christians tell themselves who's in their camp (and thus righteous, blessed, and Godly) and who is not (and so is polluted, accursed, ungodly). Creeds simultaneously bind together and alienate. A credal culture mediates this public structure into individual Christian attitudes and behaviour.

Locally too, the presupposition that members of a particular church community agree with one another is very powerful. It can be very hard for people to express spiritual and theological doubt, never mind dissent. Those who speak off-key find they cannot be heard. They are out of tune and they must leave the choir. The desire for harmony can make people wilfully deaf to other tunes. Faithful searchers and questioners may (wittingly and unwittingly) be edged out the door.

It's Written on Your Face

Jeannette Sirois for

 the City of Vancouver, 2014

Political parties, by contrast, begin with the presupposition of internal disagreement. Therefore their structures are designed to accommodate difference and disagreement. There are mechanisms by which differing internal groups seek to persuade the majority of their views. In practice multiple minorities are able to co-exist, collaborate and contend in ways which may contribute to the vitality of the party as a whole. Sometimes they break too, but on the whole public disagreement is evidence of strength.

But churches set on a foundation of presumed agreement, have all too often become rigid, breakable, friable. An inability to listen and unwillingness to accept difference all too easily result in individuals leaving unnoticed and conflicts escalating rapidly into division. Christian truth is conceived as credal statements which demand assent. Expressions of faith in ambiguity and ambivalence, fluid spirituality, historical flow - not to mention a divine refusal to be locked into small verbal boxes - are all threats to the established order.

And yet as Christians we preach reconciliation. We have largely been unable to reconcile older churches to one another and new Christian denominations proliferate like weeds. But we all think we can tell other people to love one another.

SHOUTING IN CHURCH

I can't recall having been shouted at in church. I guess it's happened on occasions, but not for a long time. I've certainly done things on occasions which have left people angry with me.

I did one (relatively brief) job where I was expecting a blazing row every time I entered the building. Although the row never came the expectation of it made worshipping difficult.

But it seems that being shouted at is not uncommon in the life of the clergy.  In a survey of 200 clergy

When asked about church members being rude, aggressive or passive aggressive to them, 76% reported that this was a regular occurrence, with church members shouting at them on average, once a week. Some church leaders however, said that they were shouted at or spoken to aggressively as many as 30 times a month, with one respondent sorrowfully reporting that it happened ‘on a daily basis.’

Shouting in this context is an act of violence just below the physical. It can be felt as a blow, an assault. It's often born of frustration but it can equally be part of a pattern of bullying behaviour.

It's also, for the most part, an expression of violence for those who want to remain within the community. Perhaps they are frustrated in not getting their own way, or they shout to sustain their control over events, or they hate they way things are changing out of their control. But they don't want to leave.

Yet at the same time such people (even when they're not shouting) destroy the quality of the community they're part of. Trust and security are lost. And it's incredibly hard to turn such a situation around into a safe, nourishing and pleasant community.

No, but might benefit
from a haircut

On a couple of occasions in my career people have left the church following a row and the remainder of the church have been able to relax and breathe again and to build a better (if smaller) community. I recall a group of three in Sheffield who left after a dispute and went to the Cathedral. I told the story to one of the Canons who replied "Oh people are always falling out with their vicars and coming to the Cathedral. They don't stop being awkward buggers here - but they do all get together."

But if the experience of being shouted at regularly is as frequent as the survey suggests (and the post gives no details of sampling or methodology) then perhaps a more collective response is needed. 76% reporting regularly being shouted at cannot simply be down to the individuals concerned.

Nor does the brief report say whether men or women are equally the object of shouting or, as I would suspect, women are noticeably more likely to be shouted at.

It also suggests that prospects for church growth may be significantly hampered by poor, even self-destructive, relationships within too many local church communities.

(The brief report of the survey didn't say whether respondents had themselves shouted at other church members, or even whether they had been asked. But it would be unwise to assume that all fault is on the side of the laity.)

Knowing how others see us

A recent survey looking at the perceived trustworthiness of the police included clergy in the list of comparison groups. (Thanks to British Religion in Numbers.)

It turns out that, in general, clergy are deemed noticeably less trustworthy than nurses and doctors, or the police, but more so than lawyers and accountants.

And, thankfully, they are trusted more than tabloid journalists - the question there is why they are trusted by as many as 13% of people.

This survey should not be comfortable reading for clergy. First, I guess it contradicts the self-image of most clergy. Second it suggests clergy have real image problems with two important groups: younger adults and members of ethnic minorities.

Over two-thirds of younger adults find clergy untrustworthy or don't know. This suggests to me that there is a mountain to climb if the church wants to re-balance its age profile by attracting young people. (Or, alternatively, I suppose churches could work harder to strengthen their links with older people who are positively inclined to trust clergy.)

Summary:

% very/quite trustworthy	UK	London
Nurses	86	83
Doctors	85	84
Teachers	80	79
Armed forces	75	70
Judges	68	65
Police	65	60
Clergy	59	53
Accountants	56	55
Lawyers	52	47
Broadsheet journalists	25	36
Politicians	16	20
Tabloid journalists	13	16

Gender: In the more detailed survey results men and women trust clergy more or less equally but more men find them untrustworthy (30 % as opposed to 25% - the difference is that more women don't know).

Age: Older people trust clergy much more than younger people. In the 18-24 age group just 29% thought them trustworthy (as opposed to 72% of 75's and over). 37% of 18-24 year olds found them untrustworthy while 36% didn't know or weren't sure.

Regions: Geographic analysis shows intriguing differences. The North East and Wales have the highest proportion of people judging clergy to be trustworthy (64%), whilst the lowest figure (54%) is found between these two areas, in the North West, and in Northern Ireland.  (added later: Wales has the largest proportion of the population who reported 'no religion' in the 2011 census.)

Ethnicity: Amongst white people 62% thought clergy trustworthy and 26% untrustworthy. Among ethnic minority respondents 39% thought clergy trustworthy and 40% untrustworthy.