Today I listened to a long account by Graham Tilby, the National Safeguarding Officer who was addressing the IICSA hearing. Much of his testimony was frankly boring. It concerned his work of bringing safeguarding practices in England up-to-date and closer to current professional standards. While I was listening to this I was asking myself a question. Why would this seem so alien to the dozens of individuals known to me who have been through an experience of abuse at the hands of church leaders? It was only when the hearing finished for the day at around 4.30 pm that I realised one simple truth. The professionals, the experts in this area of safeguarding and the survivors are speaking from totally different perspectives. It is an old story familiar to academia. An object of study will reveal quite different facets according to which discipline is being used to examine it. The glasses we wear will colour and define what we see with our eyes.
Although I am not an abuse survivor, my position as a student of church abuse of all kinds has put me far more alongside the survivors rather than as a defender of the church institution. We learn to expect that people within an institution like the church will normally see most things from the perspective of that body. Apart from learning to talk in a special coded language, they will normally have absorbed a distinction between the insider and the outsider – ‘us’ versus ‘them’. This seems to be the perspective of an employee like Graham Tilby. Arguably it also helps us to understand the apparent ‘groupthink’ of the entire House of Bishops. Their position at the heart of the church institution makes it difficult for them to imagine what it is like to be outside the group. If an outsider is challenging in any way to the institution that gives church leaders their sense of security as well as status, then that person will be a special foe. Almost everything that was said by Graham Tilby seemed to echo this perspective. Although he made various remarks about survivors there was no real identification with their plight and what they have suffered. He spoke about pastoral care being something to be offered locally – in other words outside his remit or interest. He was much more interested in the various ways professional safeguarding standards have been upgraded since he was appointed. He made reference to an external monitoring process by an organisation hitherto unknown to me, the SCIE. When I looked this up it turned out to be an independent organisation which evaluates organisations and their effectiveness -the Social Care Institute for Excellence. In other words, the main focus for pride among Safeguarding Officers is to deliver teaching and effective monitoring services rather than care for the raw pain of abuse survivors.
It was also revealing when Graham revealed what he considered the necessary set of skills required to be a Safeguarding Officer. He mentioned those skills possessed by police, social workers and probation officers. No mention was made of the skills that would be sensitive to the dysfunctional structures in which perpetrators flourish. I am thinking of course of social psychologists, psychotherapists and other mental health workers. To summarise, safeguarding has been handed over to one set of professional skills. What is required is the ability to manage, monitor training and organise structures. Little energy will be left for the care of survivors with their many and varied therapeutic needs.
From the perspective of the survivor, whose mental world I have tried to enter, all this heavy-handed professionalism feels alienating and oppressive. It feels as though stable doors are being firmly slammed after the horse has bolted. There is no affirmation of all the pain and suffering that has been caused by deviant individuals and the dysfunctional church structures which have protected them.
There is one category of professional which has grasped the reality of the chasm which separates survivors and those who want to protect the institution. These are the consultants who have written reports to critique the Church’s failure to understand what is going on in the safeguarding world. In 2015 Graham Tilby, who was speaking at the Inquiry today, commissioned a safeguarding review to see what lessons could be learned from the case of Gilo. We have referred to his story of abuse several times on this blog. The review was entrusted to Ian Elliott, an expert independent safeguarding expert. His report was completed in March 2016. The report was never published in full but was shared with the House of Bishops at their meeting that Spring. Sarah Mullally, now Bishop of London, was given the task of implementing the recommendations. The key thrust of the report was twofold. It recommended a more consistent approach to safeguarding across the country. In the second place it stressed the importance of placing the needs of a survivor at a much more central place. Elliott noted several failures from the past and, in particular, he was scathing about the poor record keeping of some bishops. The fact that bishops had not always acted in the best interests of survivors meant, he felt, that they should not left to make safeguarding decisions on their own. One sentence stands out: ‘behind every disclosure that is received lies human pain and suffering that can be so intense as to be life threatening’. This kind of awareness of the human reality of abuse seem to be totally absent in the rather laid-back and self-congratulatory presentation by Graham Tilby today.
Elliott’s review, although received well at the time, seems to have become buried in the intervening two years. Elliott built a bridge to cross the chasm between complacent church structures and the needs of suffering survivors. Somehow that bridge has become fractured. We have to hope that the IICSA will recognise the importance of Elliott’s work and recommend that the needs of survivors must once more be placed at the centre. We are not just talking about financial needs but sometimes simply a recognition of what they have been through. This blog post is the plea of just one individual who asks that the church rebuild the bridge that should exist between the church institution and the needs of survivors. This post represents a real longing and hope that the new Bishop of London, tasked with the taking forward of the Elliott report, will continue to work to keep it alive. It is vital from the perspective of this commentator that the needs of survivors must always be kept in mind as the church tries to go forward. As well as protecting potential victims in the future, it will always need to have care for those who have been damaged in the past.
Thank you Stephen for your emphasis on placing the needs of those who have been hurt by the Church, uppermost in practice. I am a professional social worker who has spent all their working life, responding to the needs of victims. I do not recognise some of the practices of those delivering safeguarding in the NST. It is not acceptable. To quote scripture and the parable of the Good Samaritan, he did not cross the road to offer help because he had received the requisite training. He did it because he felt compassion and concern for the plight of the victim. If you do not feel that then you should not be doing this work and training is not going to give it to you.
‘behind every disclosure that is received lies human pain and suffering that can be so intense as to be life threatening’.
The nst and many bishops just don’t even begin to understand this. For example, I am being blanked by the NST at the moment. Why? Or can’t they bear to stand alongside those who suffer? Whom THEY are hurting?
Is this statement was true the bishops i disclosed to would never have ignored me.
Exactly what I wanted to focus on in the training to be made available to bishops and others. It was about examining the emotional strength required to acknowledge abuse and report it. Empathising with the victim and appreciating their suffering and powerlessness. Some people cannot cope with that and so they retreat into a mechanical, procedural driven response, which lacks any human feeling. It is a defence to hide their own vulnerability. This is not progress in my view. It is deeply unhelpful and painful to experience.
When Graham Tilby wrote to me a few months ago he told me that the NST has a motto which is ‘do no harm.’
Today when I heard his evidence it did not feel like that it felt as though every one of my wounds had been ripped open and I was that unheard, unseen child again.
Thank you Stephen for hitting the nail squarely on the head. The Church must not continue to outsource its pastoral ministry to people we have failed, and must take the Elliott recommendations more seriously, not just the training ones but the culturally challenging ones and the need for real independence and accountability
I very much like Ian’s comment about ’emotional strength required to acknowledge abuse and report it.’ I repeat my expression ‘raw pain’. That is what I sometimes meet and it seems to live in a different universe from safeguarding procedures practised by ‘trained professionals’. Incidentally this post seems to be receiving a bit more attention than usual. I hope it will be read by the new BP of London. We need the plight of and help given to survivors to be kick-started into life. We welcome our first episcopal visitor in the person of Alan Wilson.
The tragedy of this seems to be in the unknowing of those in positions of power.
Reports like this seem to go anywhere rather than to the beating heart of the victims?
Stephen Parsons bothered to listen to me and has informed himself through the, “Raw Pain” of someone who had his back stuck against the wall through selective use of scripture, and years of evangelical programming.
A nurse teacher once took us to a room and blocked off our eyes, ears, and mouth so that we could experience the horror of those people who are deaf, dumb and blind. That is the kind of sensitivity that is needed. Finally, I would say what is so wrong in just asking the victims rather than trying to ‘imagine’ their suffering from a stilted position of no-where-land?
I’m not sure this is entirely fair, although I both hear and believe the pain experienced by so many who have been crassly dealt with by the current system. It seems to me that there are two sets of skills needed here, which may be (but probably are not) present in the same person.
Managing a safeguarding team requires a different set of skills and personal warmth to being the person who listens to and interacts with the abused person. The problem may also lie in the fact that it is probably the ‘managerial’ person who writes the letters: maybe that needs changing?
I probably agree with you but those who oversee the system do not admit to failures in the area of care. When you have hundreds, possibly thousands of victims and survivors you owe it to them to admit that they exist and try to help them find healing. For too long they have been treated as the enemy. Safeguarding sounds like a promise for healing and care. If it is not, then admit it and make alternative arrangements with people with the relevant skills. If you look further into this blog you will know that I am concerned for all victims of church power games. Safeguarding does not begin to think about these victims of bullying etc. We do need a change of culture to help them find their way back.
Mike,
I am sorry but I stand by everything I have said. I can send my email if you want to discuss more. I am deeply, deeply saddened by the lack of real communication on this. I wont respond again.
Sincerely,
Chris
Mike, perhaps we should put it the other way round. The person who leads the team needs to have a compassionate heart and the willingness to listen and share the pain. That sets the tone for the team. Organisation can be delegated to someone else. I have found that if the person at the top is a managerial type, they do not prioritise pastoral care and underestimate the time and energy it takes to do well. My experience is of the church and ministry rather than safeguarding, but I also speak from the perspective of a survivor and someone who has been trying to get the church to pay attention to these issues for some 20+ years past.
Throughout this set of hearings I’ve been taking part in various social media conversations concerning them. There have been some pretty vigorous discussions, as you can imagine. Most people who have never been abused find it very difficult to step into the shoes of someone who has – Stephen’s distinction here is a helpful one. So however well-intentioned their comments and suggestions, they feel wrong to a survivor. It’s like breaking a leg and having someone stand above you and talk cheerfully about the theory of bone-setting and pain relief. You want someone to sit alongside you, ask where it hurts and how severe the pain is, and then do something about it.
I thank God for those who are willing to do the listening, the feeling the pain of survivors. I thank God even more for those who decide to do something about it — particularly challenging an unfeeling hierarchy. The last two and half weeks of hearings have done me good in that respect. It was way back in 1994 that Elaine Storkey told a group of women priests, ‘Never share your emotions with a bishop. Don’t cast your pearls before swine.’ Very sound advice. There has been some evidence from today’s hearing that ++Welby and +Thornton have been shaken by what they have read and heard at the inquiry. I pray that leads them to instigate real, deep-rooted, and lasting change.
Powerful stuff, everyone. Thank you for sharing. I am not being actively bullied anymore, which helps. But I am being largely ignored rather than ministered to. Which isn’t good enough. The safeguarding training I have received does include bullying, but it’s mentioned and then you pass smartly on. Our Bishop doesn’t believe institutional sin exists, has refused to set up a bullying policy when asked. I have a friend who is a psychologist who wants to get involved in the selection of candidates for ordination in order to screen for Narcissistic Personality Disorder and others. He is being stonewalled. It’s not going to change, guys.
That is simply not good enough, Athena. But don’t give up just yet; we have two more hearings to go. There’s a week on Peter Ball in the summer, and a series of hearings into the Church of England as a whole next year. Those are looking into chid sexual abuse, of course, rather than bullying of adults, but a bishop who fails to take action against one is likely to fail at the other as well. And those failures are being exposed, and the hierarchy shown for what it is.
If all else fails, as a cathedral dean once advised me, go to the press. The climate is ripe for them to publish such stories, and they can preserve your anonymity.
Sadly, that has occurred to me. Up til now, I haven’t been able to convince myself that it is right. Plus, it wouldn’t do me any good! I do want the church to acknowledge what it has done to me and put it right. I posted that I didn’t think it would change before I read your post that +Justin hadn’t really taken things on board. It gives me no satisfaction to be proved right.