As
someone who has been involved in Church activities for over 40 years I should
have known the ninth Beatitude. “Blessed is s/he that doth not immediately
refuse to volunteer, for s/he will be lumbered with doing it”. But a few weeks ago, as a result of
forgetting the golden rule, that one should keep eyes focussed on the floor,
when nominations are asked for in an AGM, I found myself appointed
to the office of chair of the local Voluntary Community and Faith Sector forum.
While one can see this new personal role as stepping up to the plate in an act
of Public Leadership and an
opportunity as a Christian to serve the local community and influence the life
of our city for good, I doubt it is going to be a smooth road or an easy task.
With
the General Election pending, the public seems perplexed and cynical about the
political leadership of the UK, and fragmented over their
voting intentions. Part of this results
from the growing sense of disillusion with politicians and party leaders. The
public at large has a very negative view,
which has real underlying causes such as the expenses scandals, the
failed look-alike policies of the main parties, and the distance of Oxbridge
educated elites of Westminster based career politicians
from the ordinary provincial voter. Contempt for politicians is probably
further fuelled by satirists and the media focus on stories such as Dave and
Georges exploits with the Bullingdon
Club, Ed's kitchen and his
bacon sandwiches, and Farage's flagon of ale well described in Laurie
Penny's piece on the far-right:
Orwell was wrong, the English will accept a
far-right government, so long as it’s dressed up in silliness and accompanied
by a farting trombone.
The British political class does not understand how
badly it has alienated its voter base. It does not understand the rage against
a democratic system that has failed to provide any coherent, liveable
alternatives to falling wages, rising rents and persistent unemployment. From
within Westminster, it is impossible to comprehend how out-of touch
politicians look, how much the expenses scandal meant, and continues to mean,
for people who do not drink in the taxpayer-subsidised Commons bars.
In a recent
survey of Evangelical Christians (mostly comfortably off. educated
people who overwhelmingly value British democracy) only 6% said they
think politicians can be trusted to keep their manifesto promises and half are
less likely to believe what a politician says than they were five years ago. Above all they are looking for
personal integrity. 93% say it is most or very important for the candidate to
be honorable and not corrupt and two-thirds want politicians with clear and
strong convictions.
Many
Christians, concerned with the poverty they encounter in the food bank queues
in their church halls, are longing for an alternative political narrative to
any that is on offer from the main political
parties. In this context the Bishop’s
pastoral letter, Who is my Neighbour?”, seeking to articulate a political
theology of the common good can be seen even by some politicians such as Jon
Cruddas, (and Maurice Glasman who apparently was the ghost writer of his article) as a
true act of leadership
Yet
bishops and clergy are in many ways poor examples of leadership. They've come a
long way since the days of the Borgia popes, yet all have their human frailties
and besetting sins, some scandalously so. They are still overwhelmingly drawn
from the ranks of the white, male privately educated establishment elites. The
long drawn out and inward looking debates about gender equality and sexuality
seem to have brought the church into disrepute, especially among the
young. More significantly it is
becoming less certain that leaders of religious institutions have any followers
behind them, or much ability to provide the spiritual inspiration and role
models that move their shrinking band of disciples to greater faith and
effective mission. The Green
report seems to advocate that they need training in the dark arts of
corporate management, which were so evidently useful in the
leadership of major banks such as HSBC.
In Weber's typology of authority the bishops as leaders have moved from
that of traditional unquestioned sacred hierarchy towards a rational
bureaucratic mode of control.
Evangelical
Christians and their churches, which are the exception that often proves the
rule in building and sustaining thriving communities of followers often have an
alternative approach to leadership, which more closely fits Weber's mode of
"charismatic" and personal authority.
Gifts of performance, in public speaking, music or the seemingly miraculous of prophecy or
healing ministries are what qualify a person for church leadership. This,
especially in an age of global mass media and celebrity culture has many
downsides and can lead to a fetishism with leaders, and with the very concept
of "leadership". The same techniques are sometimes not far
removed from the politics that in other times and languages brought us
leadership personified in the "Furher", Il Duce, or North Koreas "dear leader". At the extreme end
of the church we have examples of shepherds
fleecing their gullible flocks for private gain, and numerous others where
such styles of leadership have proved hollow and ended in disgrace and tears.
The
Biblical traditions suggest other models of healthy leadership. Moses for
example was hesitant, asked God for a spin doctor to package his message to
Pharaoh, and eventually understood the benefits of delegated and widely
distributed leadership. When Kingship was established in Israel it seemed that God
regretted it, and with few exceptions it proved disastrous. A balance of
powers, involving prophets and priests in counterpoint with rulers was
required. Some of the most notable political leaders in the Old Testament, Joseph,
Daniel and Nehemiah were in charge not of their own people but slaves in exile
or under foreign occupation. And it was into such a situation that the Messiah Jesus
of Nazareth was born in humble circumstances and not in a palace. His
alternative approach as a servant leader, yet speaking with authority, inspired
many yet led him into conflict with, and death at the hands of the political
and religious leaders of that age. One
can read the story of the early church as understanding these principles, where
authority, ministries and leadership was widely distributed among the brothers
and sisters of each local congregation, with the "big name"
travelling apostles and overseers being above all connectors and networkers
between the churches.
In
our culture which distrusts institutional authority, and in which open and
flexible light touch networks are critical to the function of society these
types of leadership, which Roger
Haydon Mitchell describes as kenarchy are surely more appropriate. Or as Mother Teresa put it "Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person." It might be better to say "do it
together".
So in
developing public leadership in the UK today I doubt that the establishment
coalition of bishops, large charities and benignly progressive political
parties can articulate the solutions, let alone rebuild national institutions
that are needed for the justice and welfare of all. Longing for celebrities or
charismatic demagogues, in church or state to lead us out of the wilderness, is
even more dangerous. Rather it is going
to require a struggle from below, a careful building of alliances of democratic
member led independent voluntary associations, community groups, progressive
local authorities, parish churches, other congregations and faith communities.
And that is
going to need hope, grace, humility, patience and time.
