"Suffer the children to come unto me" by John McKeever

In the light of the Ryan Report John McKeever examines the concept of structural sin.

These words of Jesus have forever gained an additional, bitter poignancy in the Irish psyche. The children who did ‘come unto’ some of Christ’s earthly representatives for care and protection did suffer, and appallingly. While the country reels in shock, and grieves over the horrific detail of our hidden history, a critical analysis of the whole concept of structural sin may help us come to terms with the past and prevent further abuses.

It is difficult to imagine a more flagrant and systematic contravention of the central tenets of the Christian value system than the revelations of the Ryan Report. Both Old and New Testaments emphatically command us to protect the powerless – the raggy boys, the maggies, the migrants, the addicts, the prisoners and those people excluded by virtue of a physical or mental disability. This litany of some of the categories of exclusion may be collapsed into one meaningful term – the other. How are we collectively faring in regards to our treatment of these other others?

The theological study of sin is called hamartiology. This word derives from Greek and denotes missing the mark, as in archery. It is personal, individual and subjective.

Structural sin by contrast is corporate, communal and diffuse. It may be characterised more as a sin of omission than as a sin of commission. Our collective actions – through the proxy of our elected or appointed representatives – may be in the realm of commission; but our collective failure to monitor and challenge these representatives is often a sin of omission.

When our failure comes to light we experience a sudden collective guilt which painfully interrogates our individual and communal conscience. It is natural to seek someone else to blame. While the primary culprits are a relatively small and identifiable group of ‘serial abusers’, who may or may not face criminal justice, there remains the sweeping societal culpability for privileging the powerful and silencing the powerless.

The scriptures have much to say about structural/ corporate sin. God addresses and reproves the corporate nation of Israel again and again through the prophets. Injustices and abuse of priestly privilege are common themes. Jesus lambastes the Pharisees collectively with a blistering critique. He weeps over Jerusalem.

What would Jesus say to us as a nation in the light of the Ryan Report?

When the painful machinery of justice has ground to an eventual halt, this rhetorical question will still require a long and searching engagement. This is a ‘Damascus moment’ for the Irish people and like Saint Paul we would do well to not hasten to interpret what has just happened.

My 87 year old mother, a devout Catholic and daily communicant all her life, shocked me with her own considered response to the uncovering of this structural sin. “There is only one solution to this awful situation. That’s a new reformation. I am sorry to say it has come to that.”

Those unselfconscious words are for me a telling measure of the depth of the shock and disbelief we are all going through. I agree with her, but I think reform of the church alone stops short of what is needed.

John McKeever is 49 and from Belfast but living in Dublin. He overcame chronic alcoholism and has developed an award-winning personal devlopment programme, Staying Real, based on his own experiences and his reading in theology and philosophy.

Join The Conversation:
What do you think Jesus would say to the nation in the light of the Ryan Report? If reform of the church stops short of what is needed, what other changes must happen? Are we in danger of pointing the finger and blaming others rather than facing our corporate responsibility in preventing abuse? Post your comments and questions below.

Creating an attractive community of faith by Daniel Caldwell and Paul Cawley

There has been much talk about how church should look in the 21st Century. This has prompted a debate about how the emerging church should be shaped and what values should underlay that process.

Much has been written that polarises these two positions as “attractional” versus “missional/incarnational”.

“Attractional” church at its core is concerned primarily with changing the internal perspectives to “make church attractive” so that others will join. This is best demonstrated by the move within churches to create a comfortable environment which provides the invitation “come and see” and has driven the need for professionalism in all that we do.

“Missional” communities of faith are based around a ‘go live’ mentality, with people engaging in ‘mission’ where life is lived.

An “attractional” concept of church bases the interactions of corporate faith around events in church, while “missional” thinking emphasises the relationship between people. It’s not so much about putting on a good show to attract people, as being a caring community of people living out a relevant humanity-focused lifestyle.

I believe people coming to church should have a great experience. They should meet people, diverse in age, backgrounds, race and beliefs. They should encounter a community of faith that is more interested in the process and journey of relationship than the concept of hosting an event.

I can see why people like events based models. Some individuals love events and conferences, believing they offer an opportunity to engage with God instantaneously.

This can under value the process of faith. Process is about the long haul. We need a greater understanding that faith may be produced in a moment but is worked out in the daily engagement of life.

“Attractional” church ultimately boils down to providing people with a quality event with the view to attracting and keeping them. I believe this model has failed and will fail the church in the future because it reduces our ability to be relevant and ultimately to be human.

People crave authenticity. This current generation craves reality. They want a community of faith that doesn’t put on a show but is real.

When we strip away our lights, our stages and even our sermons, after the event only relationship will engage people in the things of faith. Humanity is drawn to humanity; to each other’s successes, struggles, doubts and fears.

We no longer want church that sticks to the script. We want it to be real; to show the good and the bad. Not so much to put on a show as to create an environment and community that welcomes questions, encourages doubters and ultimately reflects Jesus. The church is us. We’re not perfect, yet we’re all the world has.

The church is full of broken, flawed humanity strewn together by the bonds of faith, hope and love, all on a journey towards Christ and to reveal God to the world. To paraphrase Ed Stetzer and David Putman in ‘Breaking the Missional Code’ (2006):

Instead of creating services, may the church serve; instead of programmes may we start processes. May we move from “attractional” to incarnational. May we move from professionals to passionate participants; from formula to freedom and from ordered to organic.

Bishop Graham Cray said: "The church must always be willing to die to its own cultural comfort in order to live where God intends it to be." If we’re honest, we like our structure, our services and how we do church. However, for some of us it’s not working. We need to realise, that the church is not here for us.

Erwin McManus explains: “We are the church. The church is not here for us. We are the church and we are here for the world.”

We have the exciting mission of living the incarnation. Being the hands, feet and mouthpiece of Jesus; bringing the kingdom to earth, to humanity, to our school, colleges and workplaces. Ending the performance. Praying. Listening. Starting a conversation with our community, engaging them with destiny, justice, faith, hope and love. Living missionally. Living attractive lives of faith. Bringing the Kingdom on earth.

A collaboration between Daniel Caldwell, Principal of Carraig Eden Theological College and Paul Cawley, a member of the Leadership team at Greystones Community Church.

Join The Conversation:
What do you think church should look like in the 21st Century? Has the ‘attractional’ model failed? What will authentic faith communities look like? Post your comments and questions below.