In terms of public relations the last fortnight has been a disaster for the Church of England in general and St. Paul’s Cathedral in particular. Giles Fraser, who resigned as Director of the St. Paul’s Institute, the Cathedrals’s‘think tank’, has been accused by his opponents of grand-standing. The Dean resigned, clearly feeling isolated and abandoned in the Christian fellowship. The Bishop of London is portrayed by some as a toady to the bankers and by others as substituting the appearance of firmness for the reality of indecision. The Archbishop of Canterbury is said to be irresolute because he did not come out with instant sound bites siding with one side or the other. In short, it’s a bit of a mess.
May I put in a word for indecision and irresolution? They are often the product of realising that few issues, especially in their moral and ethical dimensions, are capable of simplistic headline-grabbing determination. In an age of fast-moving media it is, of course, attractive for political and religious leaders to make a statement that can be instantly understood, quoted in brief at the top of a paragraph, and repeated ad nauseam throughout the 24 hour life of a cycle of news story. It gets called leadership. But the Gandhis and Mandelas of the modern world, or the saints and sages of earlier times, did not assert their views in this way because they knew that firmly stated opinions are in the long run only effective persuaders if they are accompanied by evidence of hard won wisdom and magnanimity. It is this ability to match a rhetorical tone with empathy that so many leaders lack today.
I am a great admirer of Rowan Williams because he never pronounces without thought, never poses for the sake of a good picture, never fails to see that any serious disagreement has two sides to it. In the school of modern management this may not be a good role model, but I doubt if Jesus Christ or Buddha would have passed a psychometric test. I am sure that St. Paul’s will survive its media pasting now just as it survived physical assault from the skies seventy years ago. The Anglican church may even come to be seen as more evidently human for its swithering and uncertainty. I accept that its many difficulties and divisions, especially in matters of sexuality, are alienating droves of young people, but just as the tented protesters outside the Cathedral are clearly speaking for many millions of people of all ages who are disgusted by the excesses of capitalism, so these same people may well come to see strong assertive leadership as no less repugnant. It is what Anglicanism is accused of lacking, but if firmness of purpose is precisely what motivates the big financiers then by contrast people may start to respect once again those who win over their opponents by respecting their views and through at least an appearance of diffidence. Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Adolf Hitler, which of them has the more pervasive influence in the modern world?
Alastair Niven
