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.

The EU and the CofE

Here's my magazine article for June:

On Thursday 23^rd June, voters will be able to have their say over the future of the UK's relationship with the EU. This will be, and indeed is already being, preceded by lots of comments from religious leaders about the issues, followed by lots of criticisms of religion 'meddling' in politics.

Those who don't approve of religious leaders speaking out on political issues (although they tend only to disapprove if the religious leader holds an opposite opinion!) often make two mistakes. Firstly they assume that faith and politics are separate; that one's faith is a private matter whereas politics is about public issues and never the twain should meet. This is a false division as any faith worth its salt has an outward dimension and has a view about how humans should interact. Indeed, Jesus taught us to ask our heavenly Father “thy kingdom come” and Jesus himself was executed because he represented a threat to the political and religious authorities of his day. The second mistake that is made is to think that a discussion about politics can be held in a neutral, value-free, completely 'rational' environment. We all have a world-view that shapes our thinking about society: for a lot of people that world-view is influenced by their religious beliefs for others it is influenced by their secular beliefs.

So I offer my ha'p'orth on the referendum, two reflections both based on the experience of the Church of England, but on different sides of the argument. Firstly, one of the founding principles of the Church of England was that it was not subject to Rome. Henry VIII reasoned that as he was appointed by God, he was answerable only to God, and therefore that he, not the Pope, was the head of the English church. As the Church of England spread around the world, this principle went with it, so that each national church had the authority to decide matters for themselves without looking to England. Therefore, all the churches of what is now the Anglican Communion have different liturgies and different views on certain issues. Thus the principle of each nation being in supreme control of its own area is central to the history of the Church of England.

On the other hand, the Church of England makes no grand claims for itself, it simply states that it is “part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” It doesn't claim to be the true Church, or the Church in its entirety but just a part of the Church. There's a recognition that it is part of a larger whole and so that it is dependant on, and in partnership with, the rest of the Church

These two reflections show that it is possible for a Christian to be on either side of the debate, and indeed www.reimaginingeurope.co.uk is “a space for Christian reflection and debate on Britain’s future relationship with Europe” with views on both sides. However you decide to vote, and whatever the result, the Christian prayer to God remains the same “thy kingdom come on earth, as it is in heaven.”