There is a scene in the West Wing where Toby, one of the team has leaked classified military information. Whatever the justification, he broke the law. He comes into the Oval Office, with his resignation letter only for President Bartlett to say:
“I’m sorry but I cannot accept your resignation. I have to sack you.”
Everyone else wanted Bartlett to keep his distance, not to have a meeting with all the risks. Toby was too toxic to the president. The easiest thing would have been to let him slip out the back door. It is costly for the president to take ownership and sack Toby, a man who had been a good friend. There is recognition that this was always going to be the outcome.
Watching the news storm around Peter Mandelson reminded me of this. There is something inevitable about a twice disgraced cabinet minister having to resign in disgrace once again. Yet, if the allegations against him are true then should he be able to do the honourable thing and resign? I think not. I think that the legislation to remove his peerage should go ahead. This matters not just for him and public perception. It matters for the Government and the wider body political. This would mean Parliament admitting that they are responsible for Mandelson. They made him what he became. They feared his supposed mastery of the political dark arts. They (especially Cameron’s Tories) admired and practically worshipped him and those like him. Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Keir Starmer kept trusting him, he served a purpose for them, so they kept bringing him back. This action of removing him acknowledges that he should not have been there in the first place. It means that they own the problem. They are their brother’s keeper.
Many reformed churches have something called church discipline for serious and public sin. It means that someone can be removed from membership. What though do you do when the member in sin says that they are going to resign? I would argue again that you have to refuse the resignation and take the matter to the church members. Somehow, that person was brought into membership. You are of course fallible but looking back to have to say that the fruit of repentance is not there so you cannot say that this person should be and should have been a member. You are taking responsibility as your brother’s keeper. You are saying more though. You are also saying that your desire is to restore your brother. You are his keeper.
Faithroots 