Change and decay in all around I see

I was ordained almost forty years ago at  a time when the Church was ‘different’.
Within a few years we had been shaken to our bootstraps by scandals that could never have been  imagined. 
Perhaps they should have been dealt with decades before, and it is awful that they weren’t.
Confidence in the Church was deeply shaken.
I can admit , now, on reflection  that I found this difficult. More difficult than I realised

I was ordained  as a trusted community worker.
I became a person whose integrity was completely and utterly challenged.

We were betrayed by a whole range of people who had used their positions of trust and respect to abuse other persons, mentally, physically and spiritually.
Personally I recognise that I went from being a person held in high regard  to one who who was automatically distrusted.
In a few short years we went from the church being an institution where people could be safe to one where people were immediately suspicious.
One of the consequences of this was that numbers dropped quite dramatically.
In the mid 90s I would have expected  that we might have had 200-250 worshippers each week.
It is now remarkable if we have half that number.
Nevertheless, I am still thankful that many people have done more than just reject the church’s ministry. They have recognised that the majority of Christian people continue to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God.
The few, and I think it is ‘a few’ who  betrayed the trust that should have been expected of them, have seriously weakened the Church.
It is probably a good...but it is certainly a painful , thing.
I want to urge any who still are harbouring hurts to come forward and invite the processes to work for their benefit. I pray that I may not have been one who has precipitated any abuse.
For the rest of us, it is good to have had our egos deflated, and our self-importance crushed.

Jesus identifies not with the abuser, but with the abused.  Not with the strong but with the weak. Not with the bully but with the victimised

(this is a reworking of a reflection I made as I left my last parish after 18 years. Much of what I said then bears repeating)

trouble afoot-on keeping one's nose clean

I am interested that my little blog has attracted some attention in the last few days from unexpected quarters. In particular the entry of November 30 about the possibility of Bp Ross Davies being compensated by the Diocese of the Murray, in order to facilitate his early retirement.
I made the comment then, and I stand by it, that it would be unfortunate if the Church were to be seen to compensate one of its prelates, in a way that it has clearly not been able or seen fit to compensate some of its victims...or rather the victims of some perpetrators of abuse..
One telephone call a few days ago, made the point, with which I do not concur that one of the publicly named clergy was being hard done by. That remains to be seen.
He nevertheless commended me for the point I was making about the injustice, perhaps even immorality, of the institution doling out largess to the Bishop in order to get him to go away.
A commentator today criticised me for suggesting that one of the perpetrators may be being prejudged. I steadfastly deny that I am referring to any case in particular, but I suspect that the commentator may well be closely associated with said person. I have no way of knowing for certain.
But, indeed, my sympathy goes out to those who have to deal with the mess that other people have made.
I am just intrigued that obviously my comments do not go unnoticed.
But let not our personal involvements stop us from seeing that these processes need to be done decently and in order.
I reassert that the church must state uncategorically that the welfare of those who have been betrayed by so-called pastors must be our highest concern, the institution must take second place to those who have been so brutally wounded. If we don't get this right then we may as well shut up shop!

Heavy weigh-in

Events of the last few days seem to be sitting heavily with me, though there is a sense in which crap is being moved. And while that is messy, it is good to do it. And even better to have it done. But why is there so much of it?

In a conversation with someone after Kirk on Sunday they said "I just wish it would all be over!"

I agree. I remember thinking in my early days on the Professional Standards Committee (of which I am no longer a member), Surely this week when we go for our meeting we will ahev made some head way.

But no, each time there was a new pile, and then the next time time another pile.

Recent events, take me back thirty...no forty years! (here for one version!). And an awful lot of chickens seem to be coming home to roost. So maybe this is good....But really sad! Hurtful! And it grinds you down!

I am struck (yet again) by how poor the church is at process. And how like everyone else we are when we should deal better with people. But we watch our backs, we stretch the truth, and like everyone else some of us must (apparently) not be telling the truth, since mutually contradictory tales are being told

God help us!

The problem of abuse

As the struggle of dealing with child sexual abuse in remote aboriginal communities continues, we should not be surprised that this stretches resources (here). The problem is deeper than we think, or want to admit.

An example of the extent of that this week is that we have seen the Roman Catholic Diocese of Los Angeles make an enormous financial settlement with victims of abuse in that Diocese over 50 years (here). Our own local Anglican Diocese has been struggling with this issue  for some years. And it does indeed stretch our resources.

It is important to recognise that while the provision of adequate law enforcement, compensating victims , and the need to start again are critcal issues and need to be dealt with well.

But they  beg the question of whether they are attempts at local containment of a problem that is actually much wider. 

This certainly has been a major critique of the aboriginal community focus. The indigenous people are an easy target, but what of non-indigenous communities.

None of my blog readers would imagine that I am  suggesting that we should not be throwing resources to support aboriginal communites. May they not be used to posture and paint power-brokers in a good political light!

Churches, too, are an easy target. Highly visible and outspoken, and good targets for the charge of hypocrisy. But do we imagine that abuse is limited to the church alone.

Certainly not!

My contention would be that there is a fundamental issue about MEN. Yes, men! 

Although there are a few isolated cases (readily sensationalised by a male dominated media) of women abusers the real problem is men.

We live in a society, both black and white, religious and non-religious which allows men, not all men, to believe that you have a good chance of getting away with abuse.

Now maybe we are tightening up on this.

But I don't want to have narrow 'easy-target' focuses when there is clearly a much wider problem throughout society.

Where are the resources for schools to address the teaching of programs to help boys become the sort of men we want them to be?

Where is the wholesale examination of why our legal system by and large fails to convict rapists and abusers (anything up to 85-95% perpetrators of vilent sexual attack are never convicted or brought to justice)

You see, it is easier to hit the soft targets, but the problem is much more extensive than that.

Weakening the twenty second catch

Many will be, if not pleased then, interested to hear that the dreaded health checks of aboriginal children will not be compulsory. (see Minister Abbot's comments here)
Threats of these checks have allegedly sent mothers scurrying with their children into the bush, fearful that those who 'fail' their tests will be removed from their parents. This, after all, is a strategy used throughout Australia, not just in aboriginal communities...children 'at risk' are placed in care. It is difficult to know what else to do, since child abuse situations clearly demand prompt action.
What, too, if checks actually uncover child abuse and promises have been made that children will be left with their families...whilst the spectre of removing children from their parents looms large in aboriginal communities, nevertheless what to do?
All this stresses the need to have a properly resourced (and highly resourced) totally independent body that oversees this. That is totally free of political interference.
Maybe this is just vain hope and naivete on my part. As each decade goes on this problem get worse, and more expensive. At what point will we bite the bullet and say this is actually more important than being in Iraq. Or maybe I just have unrealistic expectations of what governments and politics can achieve.

Maudlin, magdalen, mawdlin'

Can't help but feel that my recent entries have been a little maudlin.
I am feeling faint rushes of panic about whether or not everything has been done for Christmas, the end of the year, going away in January, preparations for study that has to be done in January so I can have 6 weeks off in May-June (for which the ticket is now booked).
I have attended one discussion with some colleagues about ongoing concerns about work conditions and changed work circumstances, lack of consultation and what on earth can be done about it. (precious little seemingly). We are required to sign a series of documents the basic thrust of which I agree with but some specific details of which seem positively Orwellian ( what a prescient genius that man was...see here for an eclectic Wikipedian collection ). We are required to give consent to information being collected which we don't even know exists, to that information being shared, even though we don't know what it is, where it came from or whether it is accurate. On top of that we indemnify (so it would seem) absolutely everyone so that if process abuse (or emotional and / or psychological abuse) transpires then no one is to blame other than ourselves!! It would make a good novel, I can think of a good title 2084 but someone told me that something like that has already been taken. What about Kafka meets George? If for a moment I knew enough about either then I would be so moved.
In the meantime (maudlin coming up) I am trying to coalesce a good Christmas poem, so lots of phraselets are buzzing around unrelatedly in my head, "Swoop birds flicking from tree to bush".
And this morning as I was reflecting on Luke 1:39-35 (When Mary meets Elizabeth ) I was sitting in the garden and witnessed "When Maggy meets Tilly"---and it seemed to echo. The magpie came and picked at the dog's bowl and they seemed to be at peace, and to delight in each other's company. You see quite nice, but all so maudlin.

Abuse

I was rightly told off by an erstwhile reader for only posting twice last week.
It was one of those weeks .
Part of the hurly burly was caused by the Diocesan Synod which took up Thursday night, Friday from 2-10 p..m., Saturday from 8 a.m. -8.30 p.m., and Sunday afternoon.
It was not all hard slog and there were lighter moments. There were also profound insights and deeply moving times.
During one discussion a priest began his address by saying "I am a survivor of sexual abuse in this Diocese..." and he went on to invite us to be sure that we did not perpetuate abuse by victimising (particularly) gay and lesbian people.
I had indulged in my own theatrics my declaring myself to be a "bastard in the eyes of the church".
There was some laughter at suggested that I was still so.
I made this disclosure to show how sexual morés change.
My mother was divorced, the victim of a violent marriage. My father was her second husband. In the late 1940s when they were married the Anglican Church would not marry divorcées, and regarded those who married as living in adultery.
My mother, though a devout and practising Anglican, was married in the Presbyterian Church and readmitted to Communion (as she had been technically excommunicated) in the Church of England a week after she was married.
When I was born the church still regarded divorced people as living in adultery. So I technically am a bastard......resist the temptation, resist it, resist it!
My particular personal appreciation for the priest's disclosure that he was a survivor is that given my own bizarre "bastard" disclosure, about the way the church used to treat divorced people as though they were living in adultery even if they were legally married as my parents were, gave me a deeper appreciation of how abusive this was for them, and how this abuse was perpetuated for decades.
My mother worked through it but it probably took her 30 or 40 years. My father (who was not really a church person) in one sense couldn't have cared less about the stupid church games but it certainly made him feel unwelcome and less inclined to embrace the life of the church. Both of them were abused by this and I had never clearly named it like that. So I am grateful for that insight.
There was much other stuff to be thankful for.
The enjoyment of the company of other Anglicans who you only see at Synod once a year, which used to be so much a feature of Synod and shared meals and conviviality.
Is everything returning to normal? I hope so.
But it will never be the same again.