what outcome does sekhar expect to receive by telling the headmaster the absolute truth?
By Paul Devonshire
Archbishop Rowan Williams has called for the Church to be an "belligerent democracy". He sees the need for "an investment in articulate, competent religious communities" (my italics). My feel suggests that the Church of England shows petty taste for such thinking, from parish to diocese. My wife, an ex-churchwarden, had been invited by the previous incumbent to be the editor of our church magazine, a function she had fulfilled for over five years. With no prior warning or opportunity to claiming the decision, she was sacked under a confidential particular at a PCC coming together. One reason given was that the magazine was existence used as a platform for articles by me. These had started with the previous incumbent with no adverse comment that came to the attention of either my wife or myself. When I asked which articles these were, I received no respond. And then much for disagreeing well and gratis oral communication. I referred the matter to the archdeacon, who declined to be involved, maxim the magazine was no concern of his. The incumbent then styled himself "editor-in-chief". The process of (constructive) dismissal showed scant regard for common decency, and little acknowledgement of my wife'due south contribution over many years to the life of the church customs.
In the absence of a physical gulag, we were, in essence, sent to Coventry, leaving pastoral care with its ideas of engagement, concern and interest in others somewhat absent. Following centuries of tradition, some incumbents, mirroring their diocesan bishops, all the same treat their parishes and benefices equally a personal subject and members of the congregation passively collude in existence infantilised. Half the choir in our local church are refugees from another parish, victims, 1 might say, of clerical autocracy. It is of note that the Independent Inquiry in Child Sexual Abuse, which focused on our diocese, identified as a contributory factor in the poor handling of allegations of sexual abuse a "culture of clericalism". When I asked our diocesan bishop whether there would be an opportunity to explore this, I received no respond. When, more recently, I approached our rural dean to accept some local discussion on this, I was told, with no reference to the lay chair or whatsoever apparent sense of irony, that she could not authorise this without the permission of the bishop. Culture works in both obvious and insidious ways. During my tenure of a voluntary deanery role of 'ecumenical champion', I was very aware of the lack of give-and-take or debate on any subject area at our deanery meetings. The format appeared to exist ane of receiving reports with no opportunity for formulating policy, proposing activeness or reflecting on how anything implemented had fared.
Declining to stimulate discussion from inside on this "culture of clericalism", I attempted to do so from without. In September 2018, the Chichester Observer published the following letter from myself, which I present in full:
May I through your columns encourage open discussion in the Chichester diocese not least on the subject of justice? After all, as we heard at the regal wedding – "permit judgment run down as waters, and righteousness equally a mighty stream". Give-and-take on this and other topics is lacking. What a breath of fresh air has been the Independent Research into Kid Sexual Abuse, with churchmen publicly held to account. Let there be more than of it! Accountability and openness are accustomed means in challenging corruption and incompetence, and then why not in the Church? Disquiet has already been expressed in the national printing concerning the handling of Bishop Bell's case, begging the question whether priests have the advisable skills, cognition and attitudes to administer justice. My feel of the diocese's administration of its Complaints Policy and Procedure begs the same question. Although this states many worthy intentions, viz. "to ensure that all complaints are investigated adequately…to resolve complaints and repair relationships wherever possible…to gather information to aid u.s. ameliorate what we do and how nosotros practice it", there was little testify of them in practise when addressing my complaints. These involved the failure to engage in correspondence. Silence is a tool of the totalitarian state. In its avoidance of the truth, it is dishonest. Information technology corrodes trust. It is rude. I discern a sense of entitlement informing such behaviour, echoing the title of Bishop Jones' Hillsborough report , "The patronising predisposition of unaccountable power". Unless challenged, such behaviour is perpetuated. Maybe the recently reported decline in church building congregations can exist attributed to this mindset rather than any anti-religion attitudes. I trust you will allow Bishop Martin and his colleagues space to reply, setting in railroad train genuine open discussion and a proper sense of appointment with our national church.
When I took advantage a Discipline Access Request, I discovered how this had been received within the diocese. In a communication between a media advisor, (described on his website equally having "used his skills in many critical and harm limitations areas"), and the diocesan secretarial assistant, the onetime opined "I'k not sure he could be more opinionated and misguided but a shirt (sic) reply correcting him factually from [ ] might be better which, in itself, proves these decisions are not taken by clergy!". The reply that was prepared read every bit follows: "Dearest Sir, I refer to Paul Devonshire's letter lament of a lack of word and failure to reply to correspondence on the office of the diocese of Chichester. The diocese would be very happy to permit any of your readers who wish to review the lever arch file full of correspondence and meeting notes with Mr. Devonshire, if he likewise gives his consent".
It is difficult to discern in this interchange any attempt to appoint with what I had written, perpetuating the very pattern of behaviour to which I was drawing attention. Instead, I am described as "opinionated and misguided", employing vilification, demonisation or derogation of the individual – discredit the person and and so discredit their ideas. Also employed is impression management by referring to "a lever curvation file full of correspondence and meeting notes", meant no doubtfulness to portray me every bit a fourth dimension-wasting troublemaker. I was seeking public fence as function of an "argumentative republic", not private conversations.
The role of media advisors and their ilk Is to proceeds the best upshot for their clients, in their case, the nearly favourable interpretation of the information in the public domain, whether to enhance reputation or to limit whatsoever potential damage. A 17th century diplomat described an administrator as "an honest man sent to lie away for the good of his country", an example of the means justifying the ends. Public relations is a kind of competitive sport – the name of the game is to win, with the all-too-homo temptation to cheat. The relationship betwixt the ii parties is predicated on the dominance of i party over the other. The goal is not to proceeds any additional insights by a dialogue betwixt the parties that might achieve mutual consensus. There is no sense of exploration into the whys and wherefores, hence the utilize of abstention and denial. It is the "culture of clericalism" in which the clergy tell the laity what they should think. At that place is no two-way street. It is anti-intellectual.
Any moral glace slope can begin insidiously, starting with debasing adjectives and adverbs leading to that well-known phrase 'being economical with the truth' and on to misinformation and finally outright lying. Advice, from whatsoever source including PR specialists, needs moral scrutiny. At that place is the danger that reputation is placed college than truth, with the boosted risk of the loss of trust. Once compromised, trust is difficult to recover.
If anyone had read that curvation file, they would have read that my many proposals were all ignored. These would have included chore descriptions for priests, accountability, transparency in determination making, due process and, plainly, debate. When my complaint concerning non-replies to correspondence failed, I was afforded ii 'chat partners', the proviso being no discussion of my complaint. Mediation was rejected. The actions of the diocese makes me suspicious that something is being hidden. Surely engaging with people honestly and openly from the starting time saves fourth dimension and maintains reputation. The Church of England at all levels could meet itself as a space for developing the borough skill of public debating, encouraging those "articulate, competent religious communities" suggested by Rowan Williams? Parishioners could then experience safe to participate more than actively rather than voting with their anxiety.
Paul Devonshire is a layman in the Diocese of Chichester.
Source: http://survivingchurch.org/2022/01/17/the-patronising-predisposition-of-unaccountable-power-the-cost-of-questioning-church-authority/
0 Response to "what outcome does sekhar expect to receive by telling the headmaster the absolute truth?"
Post a Comment