Today a Pastoral Letter is being read in churches across the country. Here is a reply to the letter from one of those who have been affected by the recent hearings. It is presented here as a guest post and perhaps some of my readers will be able to identify with the sentiments. The opinions expressed belong to the author
Dear Brothers in Christ,
I’m writing in response to your ‘Pastoral Letter’. And, since Archbishop Justin has called for an end to clericalism and deference, I’m going to call you Justin and John. I know you’ll be happy with that.
So, Justin and John, I thought you might want to know how I, as a survivor, feel about your letter. And I know you’ll pay careful attention, because you’ve said you want to listen to survivors.
But first, let me talk a bit about the IICSA hearings. In the last three weeks I’ve been on an eventful personal journey. The first week I was emotionally chewed up: the evidence recalled to me many of the awful experiences I’ve had over my nearly 40 years in the Church of England. The second week I began to realise that at last powerful people were being called to account and some of the rottenness was being exposed. Frankly, John and Justin, I enjoyed seeing those bishops wriggle under questioning from two women who were much younger than them. The tables were turned and it did me a power of good.
During the third week I felt empowered. By then I was getting things in perspective. You see, being a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and also one of the first women to be ordained, has been really tough. So often the treatment I’ve had from the Church has replayed those old scripts. And often I’d felt bad because somehow I didn’t seem able to pick up the rules of the game, didn’t have the formula for being taken seriously by the hierarchy. What was wrong with me? Now I know it wasn’t me who was wrong, it was the dreadful system and so many of the people at the top. (Not all of them, thank God, but too often the good were outweighed by the bad.) Now I’m glad I never learned those rules. They were, and are, rotten rules to play by. As Justin said last week, we need to learn from what has happened and make massive changes. I was quite encouraged. I actually had some hope, Justin, that you meant it.
And now,, John and Justin, to your letter. Oh dear. I’m afraid you could hardly have got it more wrong. So let me give you some friendly advice. Let’s start with topping and tailing. If you’re going to address us all as ‘Sisters and Brothers in Christ’, don’t finish with ‘The Most Revd and Rt Hon’. Its just not brotherly. It looks like showing off. It certainly doesn’t look like the shame Justin said he felt. If you really wanted an end to deference and clericalism you’d have signed off ‘Justin and John’. We know who you are.
Next, if you want to send out something called a pastoral letter, make it pastoral. Asking for prayer for all those involved in the IICSA hearings and in safeguarding isn’t enough. You can’t just pass on to what good work is being done without saying what you are actually going to do for those affected by the hearings. What practical steps have you taken to help survivors, for instance? In case you can’t think of anything you could and should do now, here are some suggestions.
1) When someone writes to you personally with an allegation of abuse or harassment, as I did last November, answer them. Your chaplain or secretary can draft the letter, but sign it yourself. At least make sure they actually get a reply. I haven’t had one, and it’s 133 days now. Not that I’m counting.
2) Announce that you are setting aside funds for counselling for those who have made allegations of abuse. All I was offered, in a phone call from a member of the safeguarding team, was a meeting with a female priest. I’m a woman priest, I know dozens of woman priests. It takes a skilful and trained counsellor to help a survivor of abuse. Invest some money into putting things right.
3) We’ve all heard accounts of abuse taking place in church settings, as part of worship and prayer. You speak of all the services of Holy Week as if everything will go on as usual. If it does, you will rob us of that glimmer of hope we had when Justin seemed to struggle with tears about the abuse people have suffered in our church. So, announce that you are stepping back from your role in all the Holy Week observations and ceremonies. Tell us you will instead spend the week visiting survivors and listening to our stories. You could ask ordained survivors to take your place in some of those services. That would demonstrate your respect for them, your admiration of their courage and honesty. Give them some of the outward show of dignity you would usually enjoy.
Another point: if you’re going to start a pastoral letter with a biblical quotation, make it an appropriate one. The passage which came to my mind when I read your letter was another saying of Jesus:
So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. (Mt. 5:23-24)
We have just spent three weeks finding out how much is justly held against the leaders of our Church. The debt is huge, but you can at least make a start. John, you need to work on being reconciled with Matt Ineson before you next attend church. Justin, what about making amends to Gilo for those 17 unanswered letters? But only if you take Jesus seriously, of course.
Finally I’d like to say, in my most pastoral manner, that neither of you seems good at responding appropriately to people who’ve been on the receiving end of the bad stuff that happens in religious organisations. So here’s another suggestion. When you need to write a letter like the one we’ve just had, or to make a statement, run it past a survivor first. Most of us don’t want you to look uncaring and incompetent, we really don’t. We can help you to write sensitively, to respond appropriately, to offer assistance that will actually make a difference. Many of us have years of experience working with other survivors; researching; struggling with the theological and spiritual implications of being abused. Some of us can even contribute liturgical material you might find useful. We survivors offer a resource for the Church that you need badly. Don’t continue to despise it.
Well, as far as I’m concerned this has cleared the air nicely. I do hope you’ve found my suggestions helpful; there are plenty more I can think of but I reckon the is enough for now. Feel free to ask my advice any time. It’s funny what a difference it makes, being able to call you Justin and John. Almost as if I really were your equal in Christ.
Yours sincerely
Janet Fife
Excellent Janet! I wonder if you will get a reply? Words are easy but as you clearly state actions speak much louder. I wonder if any bishop, including John and Justin, will be washing the feet of victims of abuse whom they have hurt? I doubt it.
Thank you Janet, what a brilliant and powerful letter.
I don’t attend church anymore having been shunned by the parish where my abuse occurred and being told I was unwelcome by my other local church but if I did I would take your letter and hold it close as the pastoral letter was read out.
I do hope you get a reply and that if you don’t get one you won’t feel too hurt. Just sharing it on this site has been profoundly helpful for me so a very big thank you.
Squadron Leader, How apalling. Who could do such a thing? I thought everyone had the absolute right to attend any C of E Church. Am I wrong? What happens if you turn up? Have you tried calling the police if an attempt is made to repel you?
That said it Janet! Raising my coffee mug in salute and solidarity. One of the key recommendations of the Elliott Review 2yrs ago was on this theme of drawing upon and valuing the crucial expertise and insights of survivors. Sadly, like other recommendations, it fell by the wayside once Church House was let loose on the implementation. The urge to keep survivors at bay won the day.
Thank you, Janet for expressing so clearly, wisely and honestly your reaction. When I first read the letter all I thought was “Oh no, not another own goal from my colleagues”. I’m so sorry. The things that seem so terribly wise and grand from the centre are so out of sync with reality. In some ways the letter reproduced the problem in the room, and I usually feel reproducing the problem in the room is a powerful step towards addressing it. The trouble is this is an “action this day” issue far more than most bishops seem to realise. Folie de Grandeur (as the French call it) and the abuse of hierarchy have to be addressed by us hierarchs because we are the principal practitioners whose behaviour and attitudes need a reboot…
PS since safeguarding budgets have now been raised, I hope a reply to your letters is judged worthy of the price of a stamp. The C4 training implies it ought to be…
Bishop Alan, if I had come to your Diocesan following twenty years of bullying, and a referral by the vulnerable adults officer, what would have happened? Supposing I came now? Just a thought for the next Senior Staff meeting.
Fantastic letter Janet – thank you!
As someone who has never endured abuse, I cannot even begin to imagine what those who have are suffering. The initial betrayal of trust, compounded by cover up, and indifference, is a sickening indictment of an institution placing its welfare first, and last.
Janet, I felt your letter was so pertinent and pastorally powerful. I do hope and pray that you will receive a personal reply from Justin and or John very soon.
Well done Janet.
Matthew, feet washing isn’t the response needed. These days, washing feet isn’t the act of total humility it was in Jesus’s time. I am not sure what the modern equivalent is, maybe something as simple as Justin saying that we will wear no fancy robes in worship , nothing other than a simple cassock, until every survivor waiting for a response has received one.
Utterly magnificent. The pastoral letter is clericalism-in-excelsis. Bishop Tom, Archdeacon Jerry, Dean Jane – I find it offensive, a deliberate attempt to lord it over us. Matthew 20:25. Let’s get rid of the + before the name too, unless they really are illiterate.
Absolutely. I hate the ‘Postman Pat’ style of referring to clergy that has emerged over the past 30 years. It appears to be friendly, whereas it is sometimes the reverse. And it’s not just the hierarchy (cf Father X, Mother Y). If my baptismal name is good enough for God …
And, more importantly, thanks to Janet for a remarkable letter.
Kate, I think if Matt wants his feet washed by Sentamu, Sentamu should do it. But not as the focus of all eyes in a grand service where the attention is on Sentamu.
And he can come and wash my car while he’s at it, which I think is the modern equivalent of foot-washing.
I don’t want my feet washing by any of them. I’d rather do my own.
I think we’re all relieved to hear that Matt! 😉
I’ve always had problems with Sentamu, ever since I met him. He has the eyes of a televangelist.
Thank you Janet, for a powerful letter. I so wish that the leaders of the C of E had the imagination and sense of responsibility to demonstrate true repentance to the survivors.
Thank you, Janet. I read the letter and was appalled at how Justin and Sentamu could have the insensitivyt to publish something like this after tthe last three weeks (even wondered if it had been written 3 weeks ago ready to publish quickly…..). But it is not my place to reply – so thank you for putting into words what is so wrong with the (un) pastoral letter.
Wonderful letter. Why won’t they really act?
From this side of the pond it appears that “really acting” will open the floodgates of litigation and their lawyers have banned them from it. “Some money” as Janet put it, won’t begin to pay for it. In the US many dioceses, Catholic and Episcopalian, have ended up bankrupt– property, schools, even a cathedral, sold. I don’t know if that’s possible in Britain.
One of the biggest problems in America was the inability to agree on “enough”. Different victims wanted different amounts, but of course if the one who wanted an apology or $5,000 found out another got $1 million, then the church had cheated him/her. If one victim got a personal visit, it made others even angrier if they didn’t. Some victims will never be satisfied until the abuser and the entire church are gone. So the lawyers demand nothing “real” be done.
Absolutely right, Yes. What we need in the UK is a lawyer willing to organise a Class Action lawsuit against the Church of England. We hear mostly all about the appalling sexual abuse, yet there are lots of other sorts of abuse practised in the C of E, all about about power and control by the Clergy mainly. Sqn. Ldr. Birt has posted above an example. If you challenge the Clergy when they are out of order you will be ostracised , lied about, and your good name destroyed. I know it happened to me!
It has really helped me to read this and helped me to realise that a terrible situation at a church I attended was a direct result of this misuse of
power, and not me being over emotional.
Sometimes they get it wrong, but in this case, spectacularly wrong.
It demonstrates that they are still on their high horse, and trying to get us to believe that their contrition is heart felt, if it had, they’d have arranged face to face meetings with individual survivor and not with publicity, but in situations where those who have suffered feel safe, which might not feel safe to the Arch Bishops.
There needs to be an expression of sorrow, that is genuine and heartfelt, they can’t change the past, but they can help the survivors change the future for themselves and for any future people who come forward with disclosures – and from the figures quoted at the Inquiry by Bishop Peter Hancock, it’s highly likely that more will come out.
I have been moved by Janet’s letter in ways that I haven’t imagined I could feel. Having been a recipient of abuse, physical and mental in my Catholic Childhood and
at home in my family, I had felt safe when I became an Anglican – nowadays, I feels that being safe is down to you yourself standing up to such abuse or bullying, no matter how costly or difficult and unpleasant it may be – a sad testimony to the revelations in recent weeks.
Amen to every word. This week of all weeks the we need to fix our eyes, dumbfounded on our saving victim and repent of the pulpit talk and pious rhetoric which crucifies again and again. I try to imagine scaling down this degree of dysfunction to parish level. If my parish had got into as much mess as this I would not be writing a letter about it in the Parish Magazine. I would be out among the people listening in silent shame, and if my presence itself simply reinforced their pain and scandal I would have to walk away for good. The bishops in Fr Ineson’s sights are not the only ones who have failed to pass on information to Police. The Inquiry has let the Church off lightly, I fear.
I listened to the letter from Justin and John this morning at the Palm Sunday service. Your point about how impersonal it sounded was exactly how I received it. In fact it is only now that I have read your reply that it makes any sense at all. There are so many of us who have no idea what is going on in the church. It takes someone with your courage to make a statement such as this and to waken us all up to the problems. Thank you.
Wow, your letter is amazing Janet! Thank you for writing this.
As somebody who has been treated with contempt at church, you have restored some faith!
None of the clergy I spoke to at the time read out a similar letter regarding arrests in Chichester Diocese a few years ago. Responses were split between those who’d never even heard of the people mentioned or were aware of the context, and others like me whose were traumatised by the arrival of a generic email arriving in our inboxes because we had lived through it and and had already had loyalty to the diocese stretched beyond the limit.
Janet, you have written a wonderful letter which needs to be remembered and returned to regularly. It concerns me that Justin and John, as you so rightly call them, are already looking forward to the day when this week is just a distant and uncomfortable memory. Great words like yours deserve to be remembered and continually used to remind us that there can be no forgetting. Too many people have been hurt too many times for too long, for it to be forgotten. They do not have the right to forget.
Thank you Janet for your response to the letter, which was more “real” than the letter by Justin and John. How can they “know” that the “vast majority” of Parishes are “safe places” when we heard last week that the very mechanism of reporting abuse is flawed significantly, both in terms of process and culture; did they not hear what the rest of us did?
In my church there was little reference to the letter apart from being told a copy was at the back of church if people wanted to see it, (and then there were only 4 in number). Again evidence to me that safeguarding is STILL not taken seriously, despite the echo of self congratulatory tone of the letter in terms of “much we are doing” about safeguarding……there remains much the church MUST be doing better about safeguarding.
This is a defining contribution Janet, thank you so much. It will help the huge untold story of abuse of women, including women clergy, start to come out. Also, it is just so brilliant to have some simple common sense, and a spelling out of what dealing with the abuse of POWER (which sexual abuse is) means – i.e. distributing power in new ways. The whole rule of the church power game have to change.
The titles ‘Most Reverend and Right Honourable ‘ do seem rather hollow. Revered and honourable?….let the reader decide.
Wow! What a powerful and inspired response to the pastoral letter by Justin and John. So human, sensitive and grasped the key shortfalls of how and why church leaders fail to instil the respect of those who see past the pomp and ceremony. Christ is in your reply. Christ is in the call for warmth and human justice for survivors of abusive church systems that cold shoulder and ostracize anyone who challenges and reveals the hypocrisy.
Bishop Alan, Gilo, Matthew and co. You are inspirational. You are the true church as you battle against injustice, the injustice and hypocrisy of a flawed church. Your leadership and courage are inspiring.
Thank you to the author of this response to the Pastoral letter. You speak for us all
That is a superb letter Janet. I sincerely hope they read it and take careful note of what you are saying. Frankly, I read their ‘pastoral letter’ as some of the most patronising crap ever published by church leaders. I have spent many years dealing with others’ abuse and pain, and now I am tired – but tired not just from the enregy lost, but also the staggering blindness and deafness and lack of empathy from much of the Church – the walking away from resposibilities and compassion and care, the inability of many in auhtority to simply do their job.
Prayers and blessings.
I’ve followed this site for some years and hope Stephen will at last see how valuable the work is that he’s been doing. One other comment – it’s always struck me as outrageous that at Ordinations, the Bishop symbolically washes the feet of those about to be ordained and IMMEDIATELY afterwards, those to be ordained have to swear an oath of OBEDIENCE to the Bishop. Come on, Justin and John, let’s see you change this appalling example of what’s wrong in our Church! Better still, let’s challenge you to remove the oath of obedience totally. Demanding obedience is the last refuge of those who want to exercise unjustified and unjustifiable power over others – it does NOT belong in any Church!
Thank you Anon. Having been ordained in 1970/71 I have not attended an ordination since then. Thus the powerful symbolism you point out has passed me by. I too am sensitised to language of ‘obedience’ and the baptism also uses the word ‘submit’. When we enter an institution which internalises such words, we create the possibility of strong power dysfunctions in the church. It is these bad dynamics which lie behind every abusive situation. Janet is complaining about a whole cluster of wrong behaviours that the church in different ways has facilitated.
Well done Janet+ for your brilliant upbeat riposte exposing their hypocrisy. Effective salutation: ‘Justin and John’. Wondering whether you will ever receive a reply…? I note with tedious regularity how Arch/Bishops invariably address priests *without our post-nominal + but always preface it for their own names. Even when corrected, they refuse to acknowledge our ordained status in written communications. I have no issue with anyone using + in written exchanges between clergy – so long as it’s always reciprocal. Thank you too Stephen+ for your time and care in producing your blog. Colette+
Brilliant post, Janet. Several of these replies are moved me almost to tears. I have never been sexually abused, thank God, but I so often find that the things survivors of this kind of abuse strike a huge chord with me. It is of course abuse of power, and all abuses of power have their roots in similar attitudes. The pastoral letter was not read out in our cathedral. And I have not so far been able to find it on line.
I can see that a Bishop’s insistence on his or her own + plus sign (holiness plus?) without respecting the priestly mark of others is irritating. I’m CofE now, but I wasn’t brought up to it. So I would have no hesitation calling Justin and Sentamu by their names to their faces, nor the parish priest, either. I have found parish clergy culpable in respect of abuse of power just the same. As well as being brothers and sisters, are we not all part of the priesthood of all believers? On the other hand, I would be happy to call my brothers, the Archbishops, “Your Grace”, if they were happy to show me the same respect and good manners. Like answering my letters!
This isn’t a hugely reflective reply. I’ve only just read my way through. I may have more to say, but I was too moved not to say something immediately. May God go with all of us.
Thank you, Janet, for this wonderful and strong letter. I hope you get a letter in response.
This post now comes up if you google “Archbishops’ pastoral letter”. I discussed what is going on with a friend who is an incumbent. He told me that he had been groomed during training, and had been condemned as a trouble maker when he went to those in authority. And later, when a deacon, he had blown the whistle on his bullying incumbent, and been punished by having his ordination to the priesthood delayed. As he said, he doesn’t have sympathy with those being abused, he feels it himself from the inside, so to speak. It’s everywhere. My friend is going through a period of realisation that the church is utterly corrupt. He is not my incumbent, so I can listen. I am not surprised. Today has been an interesting day.
Having read the letter now, I notice that my Archbishops do not remember that Readers renew their vows on Maundy Thursday, too. They are so focussed on clergy, nothing else impinges. So now they’ve offended me as well!
Hi! For us Readers those odd moments when we are remembered are always heart-warming. Thanks.
I’ve had a reply from ++ Sentamu, by recorded delivery. It’s marked ‘Strictly Private & Confidential’ so I won’t share the contents.
However, I will say that it’s pleasant but somewhat evasive.
Thank you all for your support, I’m overwhelmed. The comments from survivors who say that my letter has helped them are especially meaningful. They make it worthwhile.
It’s your courage that has moved me. You are terribly exposed, now. Thank you.
Result of sorts. You exist after all and your presence has been acknowledged.
You have inspired us x
Has anyone ever considered the corruptness of our church today from Jesus’s point of view? WE are SUPPOSED to be the ‘PURE’ BRIDE of CHRIST!!! If ever their was a need for ‘repentance’ in the so called ‘church ‘ of today it’s NOW,beginning with those at the top! All these robes and titles just remind me of the Pharisees,and what did Jesus say about them? Our dear Lord must be absolutely ‘devastated’ by us all! To Him we are like the church of Laodacea and that was neither hot nor cold and it made Him SICK!!Its time we ALL got on our knees in tears and turned back to preaching the REAL GOSPEL of PAUL!!How much we have to learn from our brethren who are prepared to give their lives for Christ in 50 countries of the world!!!
Just before Christmas someone senior at Lambeth Safeguarding told me bluntly she didn’t have time to talk to me. I wonder if they think that we who receive a stipend should think ourselves lucky or that because we are ‘insiders’ we should be more patient, or that our truth telling is disloyalty. I might add I don’t want money, but answers and action against offenders who continue to be protected. My oath of obedience to my bishop is ‘in all things lawful and honest’ . I don’t know if he’s actually broken the law, but he isn’t honest in my understanding of the word.
Janet, your letter is brilliant! I was astonished though that you wrote it without using the words ‘arrogant’ and ‘pompous’! But maybe you were right to avoid that level of truth. The thing is that despite watching Justine so his apologising at the inquiry, the letter sent so soon afterwards shows he ‘doesn’t get it’. And he misses the mark by a long way. I suspect John doesn’t get it even more.
I was part of the group who wrote two reports about the C of E responding to abuse, both produced by the Faith and Order Commission, and one thing that kept being discussed in that group was the need for the C of E to repent.
Yes. REPENT! And if ever there was a moment for the church to repent it was in that letter from Justine and John.
But what we got instead was rubbish platitudes. I’m a survivor and I’m waiting for the C of E to repent, and, knowing a ghastly incident of clergy abuse in the Methodist Church , let’s include them in it as well.
If this arrogant and pompous letter had actually had the tone of repentance in it, it could have started something amazing. Something real. Something that could start the healing.
Well done, Janet for telling it how it is. I have no idea how to help Justine to ‘get it’. It would help if he listened properly, but that seems to be a weakness in him not just with survivors.
God bless you, Janet. Keep strong. You have a voice in the church now. And your voice is louder than either Justine or John. Keep going, girl!!! Love it when strong women stand up and tell it how it is!
One of the difficulties with the theme of repentance is that strategically it can be used to say “look we’ve changed!” when nothing much has in fact happened. We avoided the word in our ‘Bread not Stones’ protest at Synod for this reason. And it raises an interesting question. Does repentance come after real changes and commitment to structural reform have been made, or before?
I think many of us feel that an act of repentance needs to happen at some stage, to move away from the centralised contrition we are seeing at present. It’s needed to bring healing to the church as much as to survivors. But it can only happen when very significant change has been made and survivors feel that we are being taken seriously and the Church shows it has a commitment to healing broken lives through meaningful redress. My own feeling is that the CofE is at least 2 years away from any such ‘repentance act’. At present it has to face the crisis it continues to bring itself – and learn to be honest about the crisis. This will take time. Honesty has not been a hallmark of the Church’s response in all this.
There will be a kind of alchemy to this process. When survivors see the Church willing to bend and buckle, then survivors might begin to heal. But the most natural thing you might imagine a Church to do – to fall to its knees – is also the hardest. At present the focus is on trying to defend territory and maintain holograms. Eventually the Church will learn. Change is likely to be accelerated through crisis. It is enormously hard for institutions, especially religious ones, to change of their own volition. The Church of England is a heavily armoured vehicle with the engine of a lawnmower. It’s not in the nature of a behemoth to move rapidly. And that is what it has to learn to do! Acute crisis or empowered and courageous leadership will bring the momentum needed. And when that happens change might be quite sudden. All the letters and actions and protests, such as Janet’s powerful witness – all help to push on the armoured lawnmower so it climbs the mountain in the road. Lots of hands on that bar!
We need to pray for the ‘Whole Church of Christ’ and not just the C.of E.I believe that this letter was written because of the ‘Day of Prayer’in London last Friday led by David Hathaway from ‘Eurovision.org’.He is an ‘International’evangelist who has lived through the ‘Welsh Revival’,been in jail for giving out Bibles and been healed of cancer twice!!!He has written an autobiography called ‘A man after God’s own heart’.He spends a month every year praying in the mountains like Jesus did!He is a ‘servant’to all as Jesus was.If we want to be honoured then we should ALL ‘Repent’ and be servants to all.I follow ‘Open Doors’in their ministry to the ‘persecuted’church! My do they have something to teach us!!I am no longer able to attend ‘Church’and I have been to many churches because their is ONLY ONE CHURCH, made up of those who are ‘born again’ as Jesus taught in John .1 chapter 3.I have read a book by Justin Welby and I was concerned then when there was NO mention of repentance in it,which means he is NOT. ‘Born again’ Christian and has no relationship with Jesus Christ the LIVING Son of God but God can change him as He changed me from a life of sin to a life of knowing God’s will for ME! My prayer is that we get back to Biblical standards and the life of the ‘first’ believers when they met simply in people’s homes for prayer breaking of bread.No fancy dress or titles leading to pride!! My hope is in the God of Miracles who WILL turn our church,our government and our nation back to GOD through Repentance!Keep praying dear sister in Christ !!
That is ‘ludicrous’Repentance is required NOW or else GOD will do His plans anyway ,without involving a ‘sinful’church.Change of lifestyle is the PROOF of REPENTANCE and not the other way round!!People pleasing,rather than GOD pleasing is at the heart of the church at this moment in time but if we want to escape HELL we had better think twice!I believe we are living in the days of Revelation NOW and we are not far off the second ‘Coming of Christ!’We have to answer as to ‘why we haven’t prayed for our nation and preached the TRUE GOSPEL,which FIRST and FOREMOST is REPENTANCE!!The only person we need to fear is GOD,unless we are covered with the shed BLOOD of CHRIST!!Good works stand for nothing.If ‘good works’would bring us to heaven then CHRIST would not have needed to die!He died in order to make all those who believe PURE and enable them to have a relationship with GOD as a father has with his child! God is full of love and He loves you and me,which is why HE sent HIs SON to die for YOU and ME,in order to bring us back to Himself.When we are covered by CHRIST’S blood God looks not upon our sin ,but upon the purity of His Son so we are accepted as ‘pure’ by God.Our security is in HIM! He is the Way,the Truth and the Life! He knows all our shortcomings yet HE sees the best in us! Praise His Name!!
Thank you Janet. As a sister-survivor, I am horrified at the Archbishops’ paternalistic and authoritarian reply. Your letter has lifted me. As a Lay Reader, I will have to attend the Chrism Eucharist tomorrow, and am dreading seeing the self-righteous hierarchy on the high altar. I think your reply may just give me the courage to look those men and women in the eye and pray that their response will be as it should be. Bless you and your ministry. I loved your letter in the Church Times the other week too.
I attend, too, but I feel like Banquo’s ghost as I don’t get invited. It’s a tough service to sit through when you have no license and still feel called.
Thinking of you, and the depth of pain this points to.
Thanks sis. I’m conscious of how much you have been put through, too. I hope things are OK at present. And happy Easter when it comes!
I am so pleased you got a reply Janet and so sad that once again the church recreates ‘it’s our little secret’ by marking it strictly private and confidential. My psychotherapist has always stood up to the church with me and told them ‘if it needs to be so private perhaps you shouldn’t be saying it.’ There is no legal standing in that wording Janet so if you are upset by anything that has been said in it please do think of yourself and share it with someone you trust. Thank you for your courage and thank you for allowing us all to be part of that.
As one trained in Deliverance Ministry there is much indeed in the culture of our church that I find literally ‘occult’ ie using secrecy to have power and the thrill of power. We have been promised transparency but I am still waiting. This is really at the heart of the matter, I believe.
Oh! Gosh, yes! Bingo.
What strikes me from Janet’s letter, and so many of these responses, is what a wonderful community of teachers we have here.
Janet’s letter looks like very gracious and constructive feedback on the homework Justin and John produced last week. (You will probably have read Richard Scorer’s analogy at the Inquiry about how the church cannot be allowed to carry on marking its own homework.)
A report by John Rees, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Provincial Registrar, in response to a complaint I made in 2009 about a senior Bishop, was not worth the paper it was written on and failed to demonstrate even a rudimentary understanding of the CDM. (I think I need to work a little harder to make my feedback as gracious as Janet’s.) As social media was still in its infancy and there was no Independent Inquiry I imagine he thought it wouldn’t matter; it was good to see that George Pitcher, former secretary for public affairs at Lambeth Palace, recently validated what I suspected about how Lambeth Palace stonewalled abuse allegations.
Matthew Ineson, I’m sorry that it seems you haven’t even received the homework you set John Sentamu. I hope, if he eventually sends it to you, it will demonstrate a much better understanding than that which I received from Rowan Williams and Lambeth Palace in 2009, although I’m not currently optimistic. I’m sure you will share your thoughts and feedback on any homework you receive from John.
It feels as if something constructive can emerge from us getting together here…quite how I’m unsure, but maybe it relates to how we can give helpful feedback using the wisdom of this gathering community.
For those of you who weren’t at 18 Pocock Street during the past three weeks, it’s a place where truth can be spoken and heard and so a place which holds the hope of healing. The next stage of the hearings about the Church of England takes place, I think, from 23 – 27 July for those who are interested in meeting in person.
Let’s keep in touch!
I’m interested. Good thinking.
Janet, I think you are already receiving good feedback from this community about the “Strictly Private and Confidential” aspect of the letter you’ve received.
Now, it’s just a matter of how this is fed back…
I understand all that is being written and said about this issue- and whilst much of it is very good- most of it really- there is one tiny bell rings in my head: I was ‘abused’ in a pseudo-sexual way by a senior lay churchman- and maybe it did have an impact on me.
But it never made me waiver in the slightest in my devotion to the Risen Christ and His Church – Anglican in my case.
And recently I read the poem the ‘Judas Tree’- and I now know why Jesus died.
You’re saying I think that some, perhaps many, who have been shabbily treated go on to make a good recovery. Whatever the form of poor treatment, whatever the institution concerned, that is always true. Maybe you were able to talk about it, maybe you were lucky and the blows never hit too hard. Who knows. But that doesn’t mean other people have been as fortunate, and you should spare them a thought. Nor does it excuse the bad behaviour. And, a subtext you may not mean, but many survivors will have heard many times, it is neither that you are brilliant, nor that others are in some way inadequate that the knocks have caused such hurt. And, just incidentally, most people on here do still believe in God, and still go to church. But if you are still in a relationship with your abuser, that in itself presents certain problems.
Trevor, I’m sorry you were abused, and pleased that it does not seem to have made much impact on you. You don’t say whether or not you reported the abuse to church authorities, or to anyone else, and if so how that disclosure was dealt with. If you have been reading the comments here you will have seen that many of us have tried to report, and have met with cover ups, denial, stonewalling and worse.
If you have been following the evidence given to IICSA, you will have seen that such reactions to the reporting of abuse were and are all too common, and in some cases seem to have been a deliberate policy. This has created enormous damage both to us survivors and to the Church’s reputation.
My own faith inGod has not been damaged; in fact I feel that he is very close to me through all this. After all, Jesus knew what it was to suffer at the hands of religious authorities, and he did that voluntarily, for us.
” pleased that it does not seem to have made much impact on you.” It did have an impact in many ways- but I adopted the attitude that I had my own responsibility to “get over it’- and I think that eventually I did. I never reported the matter-
60years ago one didn’t- and I hope I didn’t bear any ill-will to the ‘perpetrator’-a tag not used then either. He probably- had his own challenges.(that he died from a burst stomach ulcer might mean something)
More recently I have come to be ‘sympathetic’- well, perhaps not quite sympathetic- but maybe ‘concerned’ for those the Church now stands in the Dock – I can understand the secular world’s anger- and wonder if the
Church (es) have not really understood Jesus.
I too have some concern for the accused, particularly if they are innocent. A false accusation can destroy a person’s life, and the Church sometimes seems no better at dealing with the accused than it is victims. That’s why I and others want independent and thorough investigations of allegations.
However, I wonder what you mean when you say ‘Church(es) have not really understood Jesus’? Jesus too was angry at those who harm children – he said that those who cause a little one to lose faith would be better off thrown into the sea with a millstone round their neck (Mat 18:1-7). He used scathing language about religious authorities who ground down the poor and vulnerable and ignored Old Testament commands to ensure the vulnerable have justice. He insulted King Herod. And he overturned the moneychangers’ tables and drove a herd of animals through the Temple, because the system was cheating worshippers.
I once heard a Reader began a sermon with, ‘Gentle Jesus meek and mild, picking pansies like a child.’ He went on to say that that’s often our picture of Jesus, but it’s not the picture the New Testament presents. Jesus is the good shepherd who lovingly tends his sheep – but he also drives off the bears and wolves which would harm them.
But he died on the Cross for All the sins of the whole world- or perhaps only for those whom the Church finds are ‘acceptable’ sinners.
And should we be ‘concerned’only for the unjustly accused or also for those rightfully ‘condemned’?
I believe these sort of questions rise to the top under the heading of this issue.
Will there be a Bishop/Priest who will say ” I have great concerns for the ‘soul’ of the perpetrator!” or are such forever’ leprous’?
Jesus died for us all, what he did is “sufficient” for all, and all are God’s children and dearly loved by him. That doesn’t mean there are no consequences. Even if you are certain of your forgiveness, there will still be consequences. Forgiveness only happens if you ask for it or receive it if offered. The abuser who doesn’t care is unlikely to be forgiven. And even if I can spare sympathy and understanding for the perpetrators, and I should, the victims and potential victims are entitled to my sympathy too, and also to my protection.
Trevor, I don’t think any of us would even think of arguing that Jesus didn’t die for the sins of paedophiles, or that we shouldn’t pray for their souls. That doesn’t mean we should ease up on exposing their crimes or expecting justice to be done. But perhaps that isn’t what yo were saying?
Jesus’ “Render unto Caesar…” can be applied here. These dreadful things that are the subject here are ‘criminal’ and very much subject to ‘Caesar’ which will rightfully punish according to ‘Caesar’s laws. Overwhelmingly that will meet with general approval not least by devout Christians. But there is also Jesus ‘
forgive “seventy times seven…” – now that’s a bigger challenge- even for devout Christians. Being human isn’t easy and combining a hatred of the sin(criminal act) with a ‘love’ of the sinner challenges the best of Christians.-that probably never even occurs to the non-believer!
The Church is not very well into ‘forgiving’ despite it’s sermons and its prayers
and falls well short of “Remember not, Lord, our offences…” but on the other hand too often will “take vengeance of our sins…”
That we have to be pleased to embrace our brother Fred West if he greets us in heaven? Now there we agree. I don’t actually think the church fails to forgive abusers. I’m afraid the problem is it mostly fails to hold them to account. And that means the abuse continues. That is what this blog is about.
“…I’m afraid the problem is it mostly fails to hold them to account….”
Fortunately- that is changing and more and more they are “held to account”
and- obviously- until they are known about there is no accounting.
What might trouble me is that having been held to “account” the Church is unwilling to express Christ’s forgiveness. Or -for these ‘crimes’ – is there no forgiveness?
But many are still not being held to account. And bishops who didn’t act on disclosures are not being disciplined, but allowed to get away with it. That’s an environment where abusers flourish, but victims don’t.
The question of forgiveness by the Church (as distinct from the victim/s) arises when the abuser has truly repented and at least attempted to make full restitution for their crimes. Restitution would include paying for counselling for those victims, and comes at a cost.
What the Church too often fails to understand is that abuse is highly addictive, and abusers are skilled manipulators. Some have chosen the Church as a profession precisely because it offers such good opportunities to abuse their power over others. They exploit Christianity’s emphasis on forgiveness for their own ends. I recently read a report of research where convicted paedophiles admitted they went through the motions of confession to clean the slate so they could abuse again.
The Church has still to face up to the damage done by abuse and its own complicity in shielding abusers. I’m not sure what would be achieved at this stage by expressions of its willingness to forgive offenders – other than to further suppress and alienate victims.
Just thinking about Janet’s letter, I think one of the reasons that it was so compelling for me was because Janet knows what a good response should look like and with that in mind has anyone filled in a survey from SCIE (the people that did the audits) on what a good response looks like for survivors’. In September last year at a workshop for the NST, SCIE said this:
‘Research involves a rapid evidence review, victims/survivor survey and in depth direct contact with victims/survivors to elicit their experience and perspectives.’
In the hearings Graham Tilby said that this report was due to be with them by April 24th.
I can’t seem to get hold of a survey to fill in and SCIE are really unhelpful about it. Can anyone tell me how I can get one please and if anyone has actually filled one in? Thank you.
Great article.
It’s interesting, too…here in TEC we claim to be more liberal than the church in the UK, but my experience with bullying and shunning suggests that, in reality, we have a long way to go to catch up to CoE.
As General Synod convenes in York Safeguarding is high on the agenda. The Church of England commissioned a survey about its response to abuse, but not many people seem to know about it. In a diocese where abuse was prevalent and in the view of some remains a problem, the survey was not publicised on the diocesan website and Synod members and even senior clergy were unaware of it. More worryingly, only ‘selected’ survivors were contacted. It seems possible that while commissioning a survey the church still wants to have some control over who fills it in, almost as if there are some survivors they will deal with on their terms, but others whose views are not considered safe or useful as the church seeks to polish up its tarnished image. Do tell me if I’m overstating the case…
I think you make some good points, Anonymous!
We should be told full details of the survey methodology and recruitment of respondents. This includes basic information such as how, if at all, it was publicised in each diocese.
Do you have evidence that only ‘selected’ survivors have been contacted in one diocese although the diocese knew of others who they did not contact? If so, I think this is important and should be raised as an issue of concern, although I’m not sure with whom one should raise it.
Part of putting it out on this forum is to find out whether my conclusions are accurate or not. It is called the SCIE Survey. If everyone on here knows about it then I may have been unjust in my comments. As someone who has had to speak regularly to safeguarding in my own diocese and nationally about live and unaddressed concerns I am on the radar and might have expected to be contacted. Yes, I annoy them, but only because they try to ignore me and my uncomfortable questions. Sadly, such questions will continue to be needed until honest answers are given.
I’ve just seen the comment from Trish, preceding my own!
Anonymous, there are many of us who share your suspicions that Church authorities contact only their favoured survivors.
I’m not sure how widely the Church publicised the SCIE survey. I heard about it from MACSAS and was not otherwise notified, even though I have made official complaints. I, like some of my contacts, also shared it on Twitter and Facebook – but that only reaches people we are already in contact with.
The bishops are still very much trying to control the agenda, even at the General Synod fringe meeting where some survivors have been invited. And while they continue to do so, they harm the Church more and more.
I have just read all the comments about the SCIE survey and would like to offer an insight. I fought hard for those surveys and when I saw the closing date was only a few weeks after publication, to my great shame and distress, started distributing them (including on this site) before properly reading the survey. As soon as I read it I knew there was SERIOUS problems with it and strongly suspected that there was no ethical compliance on it. This means that there are no built in safeguards to protect vulnerable respondents. No survey without built in support, not just a throwaway comment about find your own support, would pass an ethics committee, however I did not have any proof of this until yesterday when SCIE responded to my Freedom of Information request about the nature of its ethical compliance. There is none. The NST are aware but how they deal with this at Synod remains to be seen. This is a survey without any built in safeguards and as such has already overwhelmed and harmed people. I will continue to ask questions about the professionalism of SCIE in this matter and have some strong academic support to back me up.
I do not think the survey has been selective but I do think they tried to hush it up when awkward questions started to be asked about ethical compliance. I am truly upset about the matter and feel very betrayed by SCIE whose respect for the safety of the vulnerable has been negligible.
I’m interested to know how support is built into a surveys like this? And that makes me wonder if it was a more expensive option and the Church wouldn’t fund it? I’m afraid I know nothing about ethical compliance in this kind of survey.
I did complete and return the form and found it a draining exercise, but got a friendly response from SCIE.
I got a very supportive reply when I sent mine in. I’m still kind of hopeful.
Trish, thanks for helping to enlighten us on the SCIE exercise. I have to admit my complete ignorance of the existence of the body when you first mentioned it in an email. On the face of it, it does seem extraordinary to have an exercise with no ethical compliance built in. I was also puzzled at the limited time scale for filling in forms, particularly given the fact that the clientele are potentially fragile. The great British public hate forms anyway particularly as long as this one. What they gather together is unlikely to be representative of survivors – just the ones who can cope with forms. Now that you have added the fact that there is no ‘caring component’ in the exercise, I am even more cynical about its value. The Church of England is very good at spending money on fact gathering but little on caring. Facts may seem a good protective investment.
Stephen Parsons observes, ” The Church of England is very good at spending money on fact gathering but little on caring. Facts may seem a good protective investment.”
My simple reply is:-
Y E S; Y E S; Y E S.
Thank you, Trish, for this.
For what it is worth, and for others who may be interested in this issue, here is a link I found to the Social Research Association’s Ethics guidelines. (I’ve no idea whether they might have been updated since then.)
http://the-sra.org.uk/research-ethics/ethics-guidelines/
http://the-sra.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ethics03.pdf
Do keep on asking questions both about the ethics and the methodology of this survey.
Thanks JayKay that is amazingly helpful 🙂 .
Basically Janet ethical compliance is exactly what the article from JayKay says that it is to ensure that no harm comes to respondents. A survey will be designed and then sent to an ethics committee, safeguarding board etc to ensure that ethical standards have been met. In large institutions such as education and the NHS this is compulsory but for smaller organizations it is a matter of best practice. However as SCIE is a charity and therefore must be compliant with charity law and take every precaution not to harm beneficiaries, particularly vulnerable ones, ethical compliance is surely obligatory. No academic I spoke to agreed a survey was a good idea to get this type of information but if it was used it should have been a ‘fishing’ survey (low grade and non-intrusive) to identify possible respondents to have an in depth conversation with. The identified people should then have been offered counseling sessions as part of the built in support and to make it ethically compliant. On such an intrusive survey as SCIE have produced all respondents would need to be offered support that is provided as part of the survey to ensure ethical compliance There are a host of other problems with this survey including the fact that though SCIE state in the preamble that IICSA have asked for the findings IICSA hasn’t! SCIE get round this by saying they thought IICSA would want them. Unbelievable – I have always called that lying myself!
SCIE alone is responsible for ethical compliance, if the church refuse to pay enough to ensure it is done SCIE should reject the commission. Apportioning blame in this is risky because in the FOI response SCIE strongly seem to suggest that working closely with MACSAS has provided ethical compliance, which is complete nonsense but could nevertheless damage MACSAS. I have made the church and MACSAS aware of the FOI response so that there is complete transparency.
Thank you Trish and JayKay, that is very helpful. I’m beginning to regret having completed the survey!
However, if few people had completed it, that would have given the Church an opportunity to say few people had reported being abused.
Well done Trish. Complete transparency is vital!
Do you know if SCIE paid MACSAS for the latter’s contribution to this project or whether there was any formal contract between them? If not, then I imagine it would be difficult for SCIE to say that MACSAS have any responsibility for ethical compliance.
I imagine there was no formal contract between SCIE and MACSAS JayKay but as they partnered together to produce the fringe event at Synod it is important that MACSAS speak for themselves if they wish to. I turned my invitation to the fringe event down when I knew SCIE was involved but I respect we all have different views.
Janet, your comment about few people completing the survey is what I also thought which is why I started pushing it out with little thought but ethical compliance also looks at how a survey is distributed. The survey may have not have been selective in actual respondents but in order to respond people needed a computer or someone to download it for them and then sufficient funds to post the sizeable document back to SCIE. If because of someone’s experiences they had left the church totally they would never have seen the survey as it was in no general publications so in this way it was very selective and will have got, I am sure, a poor response through unethical distribution.
When Stephen is back I will email him the FOI response and you can ask him for it if either you or JayKay would like to add your own concerns to mine by writing to SCIE.
I’ve just watched online the presentation and questions about the survey in Synod this morning, which go some way to providing more information about these concerns. (You can find it via the Church of England website.)
Good lord, that made me so angry. I didn’t think I could actually get any angrier. So where did Fish actually answer about support – what was it she said – I didn’t catch that! Ethical compliance isn’t technically necessary – ye gods – no but it’s damn well appreciated by those of us who struggle with the rubbish survey. What was it she said about IICSA accepting the survey if it didn’t have ethical compliance – oh I didn’t catch that either. What was it she said about how they lied about IICSA wanting the results – no didn’t catch that either. How not to answer any questions!!
What did Fish say -they were happy to answer my FOI -what a complete and utter load of b*****s, at the start of the week they weren’t going to answer it until July 12th but as I said if they had nothing to hide they would get it to me by Synod they sent it to me with hours to spare but then still didn’t answer Martin’s questions.
Sorry that has really upset me -I know Stephen will delete my comment if I get to rude but that has replayed so much abuse for me I don’t even know what to do with myself.
Anger seems rational to me! I think you’re doing great.
I write as someone who worked in research for a number of years, commissioning both quantitative and qualitative research studies on behalf of civil service departments for public information campaigns.
“The Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) has been commissioned by the Church of England (C of E or ‘the Church’) to help improve how the Church treats people who have been abused or are at risk of harm. We are seeking the views of people with first-hand experience to find out what a good response from the Church should look like.”
In view of this being the aim of the research, it seems very strange that SCIE has produced a written questionnaire rather than (presumably) conducted in-depth face-to-face QUALITATIVE research. This type of aim cries out for exploratory, qualitative methodology, where the sensitive researcher responds to what the victim/survivor is saying, encouraging a depth of response that can usefully be fed back to the client (i.e. the church) to increase the client’s depth of understanding of the issues. It’s not about numbers but understanding.
Those selected to be interviewed should cover a range of experiences – both those who feel they have been treated well by the church and those who feel they have not been treated well.
I’m wondering if the church and SCIE could be encouraged to conduct face-to-face interviews, by experienced social researchers, in order to give their research findings more credibility.
I might add that, if the church was seriously trying to find out what a good response should look like, I think it would be helpful for them to understand what has been bad about so many of the responses many of us have received. Common themes would probably emerge and could probably provide useful training material for church leaders, especially bishops.
It’s very hard as survivors to critique their responses when we are affected so badly by them but I think it is something that would be constructive, if the bishops were prepared to listen. If these were fed back to them through independent, professional researchers, whose findings were made public, then we might all be helped to move forward.
In depth interviews is what SCIE said they would do in September JayKay but I imagine that will be a very selective process, I mean where were all the other types of abuse survivors at the fringe meeting, why is it that sexual abuse survivors (and I am one) always get the platform. I desperately tried to get domestic violence survivors particularly of clergy spouses there, along with spiritual abuse but no – so I just said stuff it – it’s all of us or none of us.
However having transcribed what Sheila Fish said about ethical compliance at synod, so that I can start sending it everywhere, she said this:
‘and not be too risk averse to close the chance that people can actually take part in the survey.’
Great so let’s take risks with the safety of people -yup- that’s what the church has been doing for years so let’s keep it up, I sincerely hope this woman gets nowhere near a vulnerable person
I didn’t have any trouble emailing it in the end, though I was concerned.
In fact they asked everyone to fill it in online, although I think they would have accepted hard copies. I had technical difficulties with the PDF version on my Mac, I don’t know if it was easier on a PC.
There was a problem with putting the tick in the box, I found.
I’ve had a touchy exchange of emails with my Diocesan Safeguarding Officer on this. I’m made to feel I’m impertinent to ask or comment, and there is often an underlying implication that they know something I don’t. This, as I’ve said before on this thread, is dangerous territory. Condescending ‘experts’ are only one step away from practitioners of the occult. They can’t continue to recoil every time we touch a nerve, otherwise the healing can’t begin.
Not wanting to sound as if I know what I’m doing or anything, but you had to tick to edit. I did the wrong thing twice and had to go back and do it again!
I fear the ‘abuse cover-up scenario’ will continue to be the normal procedure until we have a bishop prosecuted for hiding the known facts of abuse cases from the appropriate authority — that is, the local civil police. And, if the bishop is subsequently convicted for failing to report the abuse, then a sentence of imprisonment imposed. This need not be for a long term — just a month in Wormwood Scrubs where he would learn about real life outside the ‘ivory tower’ of living in a bishop’s palace (or the modern-day equivalent).
If this could happen just once, the ‘cover-up scenario’ would speedily disappear. The situation needs a ‘big stick’ to beat the bishops into dealing with these matters properly. The Church of England seems to act as though the old, mediæval concept of “Benefit of Clergy” still exists !
Further to my previous posting, I think it probable the situation will change now that we have bishops who are women. [Please note I do NOT use the term ‘woman-bishop’ — a bishop is a bishop is a bishop ! The consecration as a bishop is in the soul and it is irrelevant whether that soul resides within a man or a woman.]
My impression of the bishops who are women is that they are ‘no-nonsense’ people and will not put up with the insincere behaviour shown by some of their male colleagues. The sooner more of these women are in positions of power the better !
Sqn Ldr Alan Birt
*************************************
Well, we’ll see. People of either sex tend not to get promoted in the Church of England unless they’re considered a ‘safe pair of hands’. Personally I’m not expecting them to make any drastic changes. The kind of radical change we need will come about only when a significant number of bishops and senior lay people become desperate enough to relinquish some control. No sign of that happening yet.
Several bishops are soon to be interviewed by police for failing to act on disclosure of abuse. It remains to be seen whether the case will get as far as prosecutions, but hopefully the police interviews will give them the shock they so badly need.
They are still insisting on retaining control of safeguarding, even though a bishop has been convicted of abuse, several have had safeguarding complaints against them, and bishops showed up badly at the IICSA hearings. Truly they are slow to learn.
Janet says, “Several bishops are soon to be interviewed by police for failing to act on disclosure of abuse.”
Yes, I have read this story since early this year. “Soon” seems to remain even further away in future time ! I would not interpret ‘soon’ as meaning several months if I was using the word.
Fair comment. I’ll change that to, ‘Sooner or later several bishops will be interviewed by the police, according to informed sources.’
Thanks for keeping up activity while I am in America. There was so much material coming out of York that it put events in Philadelphia into the shade. The biological time clock means that one is not as mentally sharp as one should be to process all the stuff. Should be fully recovered by Thursady.
Hope you found the conference worthwhile, and have some recovery time.
Not home yet. Arrive home Tuesday morning with jet lag from NY!
Well, continue to have a valuable time! It’s all grist to the mill. Give yourself the recovery time, too. I’ve just re-read this thread. There was quite a lot I missed. I was rushing because of not having long before the Wi-Fi cut out.
Thinking about the Good Samaritan. Every month since giving my evidence I get a call from a counsellor from IICSA who just checks in on me. The church which I serve has beaten me up, leaving me half dead. Why do bishops no longer just get in touch with clergy every once in a while, simply to see how they are?
Wouldn’t that be luvverly? To quote Eliza Doolittle. I can’t answer for bishops’ motives, but clergy (and others) who point out failings in the system get very short shrift.
I did have one experience of a supportive diocese, when I was in Macclesfield in a very troubled parish. The Bishop of Stockport and the Archdeacon of Macclesfield were great, and that enabled me to keep going against all the odds. But my difficulties then were with gangs and criminals. When you speak up about a wrong inside the church, it’s a very different story.
After so much secrecy and delay I hear the Briden Report on Bishop Bell is finally to be released today at noon.