some reflections on the church's 'preferential option for the rich'
Text of a final talk to UNLEASH on Wednesday 7th July 2004 at 2pm at Vaughan House, Westminster
On the 26th June 2004 the New York Times ran an article entitled 'When faith and duty collide'. Police Officer Eduardo Delacruz had refused to arrest a homeless man in November 2002, and , as a result, had been suspended from duty. Soon his fate in the police force will be decided. The reporter David Gonzalez wrote:
As someone who believes Jesus Christ can be seen even in the grimy faces of those living in the city's shadows and crawl spaces, Police Officer Eduardo Delacruz says he obeyed a higher authority when he refused to arrest a homeless man in November 2002.
The story took me back to an earlier one, also in the USA, the story of Keith McHenry of the Food Not Bombs organisation in San Francisco, who had, between 1988 and 1994, been arrested 92 times for giving food to homeless people, contrary to local legislation (See Appendix).
So I want to reflect on ministry, marginality and Mammon, and on the church's preferential option for the rich. I must confess that the phrase is not original. It was my friend John Atherton, recently retired as Canon Theologian of Manchester Cathedral, who used it after a month in Chicago over 20 years ago. As he left the diocesan offices, he commented that the work of the Anglican church there was a manifestation of the church's 'preferential option for the rich'.
Chicago is an interesting case study for we see there the most extreme examples of 'polarisation' between rich and poor, white and black, of any city in the western world. The 'mainstream' churches have followed the wealth. In many of the very poor areas, Anglicanism has virtually disappeared, though Roman Catholics, Baptists and black-led churches such as the Church of God in Christ are often still present. (The Roman churches are closing as a result of lack of priests, sexual abuse claims, etc).
The churches in Britain have a different history, not least in relation to social and political critique of governments, and to local social action. Yet as I leave as chair of UNLEASH, I think we have some cause for concern about the church's priorities. I don't say this to depress you, but to spur you to militancy. I want to make three claims and submit them to scrutiny and, if possible, refutation. But, if they turn out to be right, to action.
1 The churches are in danger of neglecting real pastoral ministry in favour of the cultivation of financial support in the interests of survival.
2 The people who will suffer most from this neglect are those on the margins who can provide no financial or direct support for the institution.
3 What matters most to the churches as institutions is adaptation to, and acceptance by, the power structures. They have taken seriously the words of Jesus 'You cannot serve God and Mammon' and they have opted for Mammon.
Let's look again at the three issues I posed at the outset. First, I suggested that the churches are in danger of neglecting real pastoral ministry in favour of the cultivation of financial support in the interests of survival. I may just be a cynic -- though I remind you that the word 'cynic' comes from the Greek word for 'dog', kuon, one who barks! But, barking or not, I do feel that the churches have withdrawn from the margins, from the places where ordinary people, and marginalised people are, and has cast in its lot with the centre. Survival has become the end of its existence. This is not, of course, to ignore the important work with homeless people which is being done, not least by members of UNLEASH. But is it being owned by the church at the centre? Is it being funded by the church at the centre? Is it seen as central to the mission of the church, or simply as a commendable activity by some eccentrics at the fringe?
Secondly, I suggested that the people who will suffer most from this neglect are those on the margins, those who can provide no financial or direct support for the institution. Data from the 2001 census strongly suggest that the north-south divide is becoming worse, after all the assurances of politicians that it is getting better or does not exist at all.
Thirdly, I suggested that what matters most to the churches as institutions is adaptation to, and acceptance by, the power structures. They take seriously the words of Jesus 'You cannot serve God and Mammon' and they have opted for Mammon.
This may seem a harsh judgment but I am being harsh on myself and on all of us in the interests of self-scrutiny and repentance.
As far as the churches are concerned, my sense is that they want to avoid conflict as much as possible, to be 'well thought of', (maybe this is the flip side of 'done good to', those two phrases ending, ungrammatically, with a preposition which sum up so much of our lives), -- in fact, to cause no offence. Mammon is powerful, and churches are happier as chaplains to Mammon than as prophets against it. We all want a quiet life. But the decline, and financial instability, of the church could be a trigger for a resurgence of the radical prophetic tradition. The fall of Babylon is often, though not inevitably, the impetus to the new Jerusalem. When you have nothing left to lose, you can stick to your principles. It would not be the first time that a crisis of the church would 'UNLEASH' the resources of the gospel...Kenneth Leech 2005...read the whole speech here.
I believe Kenneth Leech's prophetic cry to the church of repentance and unleashing the real gospel needs to be heard by the " whole Church."
