Post-truth and the failure of leadership

Here's the sermon from Scawby's Civic Service yesterday.  The Bible readings were Jeremiah 23:1-6 and Colossians 1:11-20.


I said at Broughton's Civic Service last month that this year has been a very interesting one politically – I think that statement is even more true a month onwards! Whatever your opinion might be of the referendum, the party political leadership elections, the US Presidential election; whatever your opinion might be of these, they've certainly got people thinking and talking about politics in a way we haven't for many years. And this is no bad thing. It's also spawned new words, Brexit is the Collins dictionary word of the year and the Oxford English Dictionary chose 'post-truth' for theirs.

According to the OED 'post-truth' is an adjective defined as ‘relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.’ Some have used this word to describe politicians who they claim knowingly lie or mislead in order to get votes. On this definition, although the word may be fairly recent the symptom it describes certainly isn't. Almost everyone who is putting forward a point of view will at the very least selectively use information to reinforce their arguments. I will probably do it during this sermon!

The OED description of the word as being the influence of emotions over facts perhaps points to a more general feeling of having had enough of experts maybe because there are very few objective facts, only lies, damn lies and statistics. In a situation of contradictory 'facts', the only way to decide seems to be on the basis of what you feel. But even this is not new. The story of the second half of the 20th Century onwards is that story of a gradual decline in a belief in absolutes, particularly in a belief in absolute truth. The contemporary creed and mantra becomes “this is my truth, show me yours.” At its best this encourages us to listen to other people's point of view, but increasingly it is being used to silence anyone who dares to disagree with whatever the current cultural agenda is.

It is debatable how far 'post-truth' explains the political events of this year, but another factor seems to have been an anti-establishment vote, or a protest against the current political elite by people who feel forgotten or ignored. There is a sense among some people that the leaders of the world have failed to lead properly. This finds an echo in our reading from the Old Testament prophet Jeremiah. In it God describes the leaders of Israel as being shepherds who have failed to look after and care for their sheep. Worse than that, they have destroyed and scattered them. God's solution to the problem was to come himself to lead the Israelites, to gather them back, tend them and rule them wisely and with justice.

Fast forward 650 years and we have St Paul writing to the Colossian church about 30 years after Jesus death and resurrection. He describes to them Jesus the Good Shepherd in whom all the fullness of God dwells and who is now king of all things in heaven and on earth having rescued us by that same death and and resurrection. Jesus therefore is the pattern for how all those in authority should behave, whether they are international or national leaders, local officials, parish councillors, community leaders, employers, teachers, sports coaches, parents or anyone else who has responsibility for others. Jesus the king came not to be served but to serve; to gather, to tend, and to rule wisely and with justice but ultimately he came to give his life for us.

If this is a post-truth world where leaders could and should be leading better, the answer is not to to stick two fingers up to the establishment by voting for the equivalent of Boaty McBoat Face. Instead we should look to imitate and follow Jesus the King of kings, the Lord of lords, the Ruler of rulers, the Leader of leaders, the Servant of servants, the only one who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.