Galatians 5.22-6.6

RESPONDING TO MORAL FAILURE

(Luke 7.36-50)

(Galatians 5.22-6.6)

Looking through my address book the other day, I became aware that at least four of sixteen personal friends who are priests, have managed to hit the headlines over the years by being involved in some kind of moral failure.

One ran off with his secretary before returning to his wife and children. After a time out of the ministry, working as a museum guide, he is now a country vicar.

One had an improper sexual relationship with a minor. He has been encouraged to take early retirement.

One had an adulterous relationship with a parishioner who eventually blew the whistle on him, when he began to show the same affection to yet another woman in the parish at the same time. He has been appropriately unfrocked and now lives with his wife and family and is engaged in secular employment.

And another got caught taking photographs of little boys on a beach in Tangier. He is now retired to the south-west of England.

So you can see, I have some colourful friends in the ministry.

Whilst I do not approve of their actions, I have nevertheless stood by them when their parishioners have turned against them.

And I don't blame those who have turned against them. After all, my friends have betrayed the trust which others have placed in them. This is always a serious matter, but more so for those involved in public life be it teachers, doctors or even politicians.

But moral failure is not confined only to those in public life. It occurs in all sections of community life, including that of the Christian church. Sadly, Christians in their determination to maintain high standards, often treat such members of the church with greater severity than those in the secular world.

This is nothing new.

We have an example of such censorious behaviour in today’s gospel reading. In it, the Pharisees, the religious people of the day, objected to a woman who came into the room, in which they were eating, and poured an alabaster jar of ointment over Jesus.

They did not just object to her interrupting their meal. Nor did they just object to her because she was a woman. No. Their real objection was her moral failure. So they said, "If this man (i.e. Jesus) were a prophet, he would know who this woman is that is touching him and what a bad name she has". It was her moral failure that they objected to and therefore wanted her excommunicated from their presence.

It matters not, as Jesus pointed out to them that they had failed to show the basic elements of common courtesy towards him. They had failed to provide water for him to wash his feet in to remove the dirt of the eastern roads. They had failed to welcome him with a kiss. And they had failed to anoint his head with oil.

True, the woman may have had faults, but they themselves were not without their faults though they may have been of a lesser degree.

Like those Pharisees we too are often censorious about members of the Christian church and fail to be equally censorious about our own personal failings which also bring discredit upon the Christian church.

That is why St. Paul, in Galatians 5.26 reminds us that "we must not be conceited, challenging one another to rivalry, jealous of one another". On the contrary, he says, "If a man should do something wrong, my brothers on a sudden impulse, you who are endowed with the Spirit must set him right again very gently. Look to yourself, each one of you: you may be tempted too".(Galatians 6.1)

In other words, moral failure on the part of members of the Christian community should not be an occasion for self-congratulation but rather for self-examination, for there "but for the grace of God go I".

And let’s face it, I doubt if there is a single person here, who can put their hand on their heart and say that they have never committed a moral failure. If I am honest the only difference between my four friends and myself is that I have got away with my moral failings but they have got caught!

And that is not to say we should condone moral failure or turn a blind eye to it.

As St Paul says "you who are empowered with the Spirit must set him right again gently”.

In other words, we do not approach a person who has committed a moral failure out of a self-righteous attitude, but rather out of humility for we too are sinners.

We are not here to punish a person. That is up to the secular and ecclesiastical courts. Rather we should seek to correct the person or put him or her right. Incidentally, the Greek word which St. Paul uses is “paraptoma” for "put right". It means to repair as a surgeon repairs a broken limb or removes a growth. The emphasis is upon cure not punishment. It’s about restoration and not condemnation.

I am reminded of the advice that St. Benedict gives to the abbot in his Rule. The abbot is to admonish with prudence and love, "Lest being too zealous in removing the rust he breaks the vessel”. Remove the rust, or the blemish, by all means, in order to restore the vessel or the person to his or her former state, but do it "gently" to quote St. Paul.

You see it is all too easy to go in with all guns firing when a person has done wrong. Instead of helping to heal the person we finish up alienating the person and thereby retarding the healing process.

When a person has done wrong, their self-esteem is already diminished. We do not help by destroying what self-esteem is left by unnecessary harshness. Whilst a person needs to be made fully aware of their failings and encouraged to face up to their responsibilities, at the same time they need to be enabled to put back the broken pieces of their life, in order to continue on their journey of faith.

I think I may have said before that I was particularly impressed with the former Archbishop of York, John Habgood, at the November meeting of the General Synod in 1987.

The Reverend Tony Highton had put forward a private members motion seeking to exclude from office, any clergyman guilty of committing adultery, fornication and homosexual acts.

Habgood replied "A Synod motion which is all firmness and no gentleness does a disservice to those who are trying to be honest with themselves and the world".

So I continue to be friends with my clerical friends who have committed moral failure. I do not condemn them. Nor do I pretend the offences have never happened. They know that I am disappointed with them as they are with themselves. Nevertheless, I continue to call them friends and to wrlte to them and to visit them. How could I do otherwise, sinner that I am?