Of Saints and Sinners........

I am in something of a quandary and at the same time a little concerned about what I am going to write in this blog – or rather what, in a world of internet trolls, its repercussions might be. Let me explain.

Chedwyn Evans in happier times

In recent weeks there has been an crescendo of comment and vitriolic criticism in the UK press and wider society about the professional footballer Chedwyn Evans. For anyone not familiar with the story Evans was convicted about two and a half years ago of raping a young woman in a hotel after a game. He was sentenced to five years but released, as is usual, in a shorter time having served the minimum required. On his release he was anxious to resume his footballing career. His club, Sheffield United, have been under considerable pressure from public, press, politicians and high profile personalities not to take him on again. The club initially took a sort of half way house position and allowed him to train in order that he regain match fitness but today they have been forced by pressure of public opinion to withdraw that offer. In the last week or two various local personalities have said they will disassociate from the club if he does play for the club; for example,  Olympic athlete Jessica Ennis-Hill has said she will have her name removed from the stadium if the club reinstate Evans and even a local MP (and Deputy Prime Minister) Nick Clegg has weighed in by saying that the club should not allow Evans to turn out in the club colours. I have to say at this point that when politicians start lecturing us about morals  then I am immediately suspicious!  I have absolutely no doubts  Clegg’s intervention is more to do with the fact that many of his constituents have petitioned the club on the matter than any moral viewpoint he might have; with a general Election only months away and his seat in jeopardy he is simply pandering to his electorate. In a letter to the Guardian yesterday  a correspondent said “Evans is a convicted rapist and until such time as that verdict is overturned he should not be allowed to play for the club”  Another correspondent writes: “The key fact is that he is unrepentant......”  When correspondents to the Guardian are damning a man then I know that he is in trouble!

Of course, there is no doubt that Evans has been found guilty. It is equally true that he still protests his “innocence”. There  are issues about the amount of alcohol that were allegedly consumed, about whether the sex was consensual and indeed about the veracity of some of the testimony of “witnesses” . But even allowing for all that Evans is in a hard place – and maybe rightly so. Yes, as many argue, he has served his time, paid society’s price for his crime so, they argue, he should have a clean slate. Sadly, however, it isn’t that easy; feeling is running high – the self righteous mob is on the loose. Those great guardians of the national conscience and morality big business are threatening to withdraw sponsorship. And it is here where I start to wonder.  I wonder not  about the dreadful nature of the “crime”, nor about Evans’ ultimate guilt for there is little doubt that sex of some kind took place and for me that very fact suggests that Evans was seriously at fault and open to censure especially so given his profile and the circumstances. But I wonder rather about our response and our desire for what in the end looks to me very much like revenge.  In the final analysis, the only people who really know the answer to Evans’ guilt as to the charge of rape are Evans himself, the young woman concerned and God. All the rest is conjecture, gossip, opinion and prejudice. No matter how many juries he appears before or how many petitions are raised the final judgement is still only a matter of opinion and that seems to me a very dubious reason for desiring the eternal damnation of an individual. 

And, I begin to wonder about our rather strange view as a society which seems to me to involve a number of double standards. At one end we castigate and take moral standpoints – probably quite rightly – about situations like that of Evans and yet at the other we tolerate, support and get seeming pleasure from our media, advertising, the fashion world and wider society  which thrives on promoting an endless diet of the sexualisation of women and relationships. From the earliest age girls are, in a myriad of ways, sexualised; reputable shops sell “grown up items of clothing for girls, TV cinema spews out a constant diet of sex (both overt and covert) much of it involving varying degrees of overt, covert or implied  violence towards women, many of our newspapers daily carry front page photographs  of scantily clad young women – all to encourage us to buy. And few of us do not buy into it in some manner - if we did not then the big business and global enterprises that produce the stuff would offer something else to satisfy our desires. At the same time we accept that sport pays young men like Evans huge amounts of money and they are worshipped as young gods  inhabiting a bizarre world where everything can be bought and their every need satisfied.  In yesterday’s Daily Telegraph – an august journal of middle class probity if ever there was one – was a large photo of the actress Helen Mirren emerging, scantily dressed from a swimming pool. The photo had little or nothing to do with the article, the Telegraph could have chosen any one of thousands of pictures of Mirren - but it chose that one. It was clear titillation.  I have absolutely no doubts that those vilifying and threatening  Evans and his club will at the same time enjoy much of what is thrown at us in the modern society via TV, cinema, advertising, sport and the media even though it is the sort of thing that creates a world where a wealthy and famous young man feels he can go out and have sex with anyone he meets. In short, as I say, there are many double standards at work here. maybe, just maybe as well as demonising Ched Evans we ought to look also to ourselves and our base values.

What would he think of all this?

Anyone who has read my blogs before will know that with great regularity I write about modern football – and invariably, no matter from what premise I start I always  manage to criticise the modern game and in particular the negative role models projected by young men such as Evans. Huge amounts of the criticism directed at Evans are rightly based upon the role model he will present to youth if he is reinstated. Similarly the fact that Sheffield initially suggested that they might allow him to train with them has caused great distress amongst his critics. That offer has now been withdrawn. But I wonder if we (say) substituted IT specialist for professional footballer would it still work? Let me explain. Suppose an IT specialist was convicted of rape in exactly similar circumstances to Evans and upon release from prison wanted to resume his career. In that situation, having been locked up for almost three years he might want to go on a training course to update him/skill him up so that he is familiar with the latest developments that have occurred in that fast changing world before he looks for a job or sets up his own business. Would we deny him the chance to go on a course?  That, I believe, is not dissimilar to Evans who simply wants to get match fit by training so that he might resume his footballing career. And if we would deny that opportunity to the IT specialist (as apparently Sheffield United have done to  Evans) then I have absolutely no doubts we are going down a truly dreadful path to an unforgiving society and one which basically says that anyone convicted of a crime – yes, even rape - must serve their sentence for the rest of their lives. That recalls the penal servitude imposed on prisoners who were shipped off to Australia two centuries ago – is that what we are about in this, the 21^st century,I sincerely hope not, but the present paranoia and vitriol does not bode well.  I wonder what Charles Dickens writer of that great tale "Great Expectations" would have to say about! The "hero" (if you can call him that) Abel Magwich, returns from his lifetime of Australian penal servitude having made his fortune to meet the young man Pip who he has sponsored (without Pip's knowledge) over many years. The secret sponsorship has allowed young Pip, a boy from a poor background, to rise up and become a well connected gentleman. Magwitch was the arch criminal but he reformed and tried to do the right thing, and to make up for his former wicked ways. Dickens, of course, returns to the theme  of redemption in many of his great novels - the innate goodness of man and our power try to be better: Scrooge, Sydney Carton and Thomas Gradgrind  are just three of many examples. I have absolutely doubt that if Dickens were alive today he would have some pretty scathing things to say about the strident, self righteous voices that are emanating out of Sheffield and other places at the moment.  

As I write this I wonder, continuing on the literary theme, how many of Evans’ critics have enjoyed the wonderful musical (or have they actually read the very thick book!) Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables . If they have, then they will know that the hero, Jean Valjean, is a convicted criminal and when he is at last released after many years,  in desperation  he steals some silver plate from the priest who has given him sanctuary. When Valjean is apprehended by the police with the plate still in his possession he is returned to the priest who silently forgives him and tells the police a lie that the silver was a gift to help Valjean. In other words, forgiveness was the name of the game and the priest was giving Valjean a second, or maybe even third chance, for in front of the police he gave Valjean even more silver to take away. He was giving him the opportunity to show that he was a new man, to redeem himself. The rest of the story as they say is history. It may be trite, it may not be directly comparable, but I have absolutely no doubts there are small parallels with the Evans’ situation and those that would cast stones need, I believe, to think on those things. You cannot enjoy the story, empathise with Valjean and the actions of the priest and at the same time castigate Sheffield United or Evans for wanting a second chance. To do so is both logically and morally perverse. A real life story of redemption – it's the story of Jean Valjean made real in Sheffield!

But, for me, I am still confused. I don’t know what to think. My antipathy towards modern football and the highly paid superstars of the game who by their on and off the field behaviours and attitudes consistently let themselves and their fans down ensure that I have many of the same feelings and instincts as the many of those who want Evans forever damned. I am, too, anxious about the role model he presents and the fact that if he is reinstated he will in a short time be earning huge amounts of money and again living “the high life”. Finally I am concerned that professional football has a huge capacity to quickly forget – forgiveness never comes into it! Week in week out we see superstars letting themselves, their clubs and their fans down by their bizarre behaviour and negative role models but score a couple of goals and all is forgotten – and this combined with the huge amounts of money involved  ensures that morals are quickly “bent” to suit the need and the situation! I have absolutely no doubts that many of those same folk who are currently calling for Evans to be dammed will, within a few weeks be cheering him if another club does re-sign him  and he starts scoring goals. All will be forgotten and consigned to the dustbin of history. We will hear the awful cliché “move on get over it”. That is the nature of the game and modern life – today’s angst, moral maze and news is tomorrow’s fish and chip paper,  and anyone who argues otherwise is naive. But given all that and no matter what he has done, no matter how culpable he is, I find it increasingly difficult to accept that a person should be forever damned and that an individual’s future should be dictated by the loud voices of the indignant, the self righteous, the strident, the angry and the vengeful. That, I believe, is the easy option for society: society need no longer worry about it. We "good" people would never behave as did Evans would we so “Lock ‘em up and throw away the key” is the call. It makes all the rest of us feel good about ourselves - we have locked up  a real monster, not all like us nice people! But.......forgiveness, reconciliation and being aware that someone actually can  atone for their misdoings is so much harder for men and women to swallow. It's uncomfortable to know that someone we once despised and felt superior to can actually do good and earn redemption and respect - be redeemed. It takes away our perceived moral superiority. Indeed, go back to the climax of Les Miserables  and that is exactly what happens to the policeman, Javert, who has chased and harried Valjean over the years. Javert is unable to accept that Valjean has indeed turned out to be a “good man” and by his deeds won redemption. Javert is unable  to reconcile his unwavering belief in authority and law with the kindness exhibited by Valjean, and so powerful does this become that Javert's raison d’être is vanquished - he commits suicide.  Forgiveness and redemption are very, very hard for all concerned.

John Profumo

I am also reminded of the famous case of John Profumo, a high flying government minister in the 1960s.  In July 1961, at a party Profumo met Christine Keeler, a model with whom he began a sexual relationship. Rumours about the affair began to circulate. Since Keeler also had sexual relations with Yevgeni Ivanov, a senior naval attaché at the Soviet Embassy so the affair took on a national security dimension. In December 1962, a shooting incident in London involving two other men who were involved with Keeler led the press to investigate and  Profumo was forced to admit that he knew Keeler but denied there was any impropriety in their relationship. Newspapers continued publishing stories, and it soon became apparent that Profumo’s  position was untenable. He was forced to admit that he had lied to Parliament and he resigned from office. Before making his public confession Profumo confessed the affair to his wife, who stood by him. The scandal was instrumental in bringing down the Conservative government, and the resignation of the Prime Mnister Harold Macmillan.

But it didn’t end there. Profumo, vilified and deserted by the high society he had previously enjoyed, had to make a new start and shortly after his resignation he began to work as a volunteer cleaning toilets for a charity in the East End of London. He continued to work there for the rest of his life. It was said after his death that he simply"vanished into London's East End for 40 years, doing quiet good works". Eventually after much persuasion he became chief fundraiser for the charity, and raised large sums of money. All this work was done as a volunteer. In the eyes of most commentators, Profumo's charity work redeemed his reputation. His friend, the social reform campaigner Lord Longford said he "felt more admiration [for Profumo] than [for] all the men I've known in my lifetime". In later life and in recognition for his good works Profumo was appointed a Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) and received the honour at a Buckingham Palace from the  Queen. In 1995 Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher invited him to her 70th birthday dinner, where he sat next to the Queen. His redemption complete. The Profumo story rang a few bells with me and raised  something I have thought a lot about in the last few days.  

When I was working, I regularly led the school assembly and, as I have read the continuing tale of Ched Evans, one story has come back to haunt me. I have wondered if I had been leading an assembly in a Sheffield school in the past few weeks could I (would I) have told this story? Here it is:

Once upon a time in a land far away, lived twin brothers. The two boys were likeable, but undisciplined, with a wild streak in them. Their mischievous behaviour  began to turn serious when they began stealing. First small things from shops but then breaking into houses – with each crime they got braver and more daring.  They were always caught – they were fined, put in the village stocks or put into prison but each time they returned to their life of crime and their crimes became more hurtful and unpleasant. Then one night they stole some sheep and in the process badly injured the shepherd who had been looking after them. It was decided that something had to be done about them, a lesson must be taught.  The local magistrate  decided their fate: the two brothers would be branded on the forehead with the letters ST for "Sheep Thief." This sign they would carry with them forever they were told. Everyone would know what they were and what they had done. They would never be forgiven. They were dragged before the whole village and the blacksmith branded their foreheads with the two letters.

One brother was so embarrassed by this branding that he ran away; he confessed to his brother that he could never live in the village again. The two separated and never met again The other brother, however, was filled with remorse and reconciled to his fate. He chose to stay and try to make amends to the villagers who he had wronged.  At first the villagers were sceptical and would have nothing to do with him. But this brother was determined to make reparation for his offences and he persevered. Whenever there was a sickness, the sheep thief came to care for the ill with soup and a soft touch. Whenever there was work needing to be done, the sheep thief came to help with a lending hand. It made no difference if the person were rich or poor, the sheep thief was there to help. Never accepting pay for his good deeds. He lived his life for others.

It was many, many years later, when a traveller came through the village. Sitting outside  inn enjoying a beer and eating lunch, the traveller saw a very  old man with a strange brand on his forehead seated nearby. The stranger noticed that all the villagers who passed the old man stopped to share a kind word and to pay their respects; children stopped their play to give and receive a warm hug. Both the old and the young, man and woman would have a chat and a smile at the old man. Curious, the stranger asked the innkeeper, "What does that strange ST brand on the old man's head stand mean?"

"Oh, I don't know. It happened so long ago...long before my time" the innkeeper replied. He scratched his head and then, pausing briefly for a moment of reflection continued: "...most folk say it stands for SAINT – I’ve heard so many of my customers say That man’s a saint”.

OK it’s just a story. It’is about redemption and making up for our misdeeds. It is about John Valjean. And John Profumo. But, is it applicable to Ched Evans? Probably not – the Evans' case given the unique situation and implications make it rather special. Can a sinner become a saint – and should they be allowed to? I don’t know. But in the last few days I’ve wondered, what if I had told that story today in a school assembly and  a child had afterwards asked me if it applied to the Ched Evans situation - what would I have replied? I honestly don’t know what I would have said.  Should I have told that child that Evans should be be allowed to show that he is a changed man? Would I have said he should play for Sheffield again so that everyone could see he was a changed man. Or should I have said Evans should be like the twin who left town never to be seen again. Again, I don’t know. But, as a famous footballer Evans holds a huge ace in his hand – by his words, deeds and behaviour he could be a real force for good and in the process show that he is indeed a reformed character and just the sort of role model football and  young people and wider society needs. He could be a real focus for change – not just about rape but about society’s wider attitudes and confused thinking about our morals which are constantly under attack from the media, advertising, TV and cinema.  It would take, on his part, huge bravery to turn out in front of hostile crowds but just as the twin in the story, that is the price to be paid when one faces up to one’s accusers. It would also be very difficult for his club – but again it would be a measure of their desire to present something positive.  Or, on the other hand........ maybe his critics are right – maybe he should not be allowed to resume his former life but should quietly disappear? I simply don’t know.

Mr & Mrs Kassig - forgiveness is hard but
I suspect they think necessary and, as Christians,
an imperative

What I do know, however, is that a way forward must be found and despite what those who would claim otherwise there are no easy solutions. Forgiveness  is a two way process – one half is the accusers being able to forgive and offer a second chance, the other is that the receivers of forgiveness have to act upon it and show by their words, actions and behaviour that they are indeed changed. Earlier this week we heard of the dreadful beheading by members of the Islamic State of the young American aid worker Peter Kassig. In a truly humbling appearance and statement his distraught parents said, amongst other things, "Please pray for  Pete........ at sunset this evening. Pray also for all people in Syria and Iraq around the world who are held against their will.........and lastly please allow our small family the time in privacy to mourn, cry and yes, forgive, and begin to heal."  The Ched Evans affair is not of the magnitude of that terrible event in Syria and anyone who argues that it is utterly wrong. But the fact that Peter Kassig’s parents in their darkest hour can even mention the word “forgive” is a lesson for us all both as individuals and as a society; we need to step back and think rather more carefully than we are doing at the present. Within this dispute there are issues that go to the very heart of justice, belief, morals and of what it is to be human and to be a member of our modern society. It is about what we might expect of others and indeed what we ought to expect of ourselves as human beings.