Some days have now passed since I received and posted up the guest post from Janet Fife. This took the form of a letter to our two Archbishops. Janet and I had had an email conversation about the Pastoral Letter and we agreed that a survivor’s reaction to it was important. She told me that she needed two or three days to write a blog post. In the event her response arrived extremely quickly on Saturday evening. My first reaction on reading it was to be cautious. But very soon I began to see that in its direct language and in the way that it gave voice to a raw expression of pain, the letter was saying something to the Church that needed to be heard. In the two days since being posted on Sunday morning the post has been viewed 8000 times and the reactions so far have all been positive. Apart from reflecting Janet’s experiences of actual abuse in the church, it is a document that describes well the way that the Church, having accepted women’s ordination, has not given some of these women an easy ride over the past 25 years.
I do not intend to add my own commentary on the Archbishops’ letter. But there is one point made by Janet that needs to be repeated. She asks that whenever bishops or senior churchmen produce a piece about the issue of sexual abuse that they should ask a survivor for their reaction. I want to repeat this request. The word ‘safeguarding’ which has come so frequently into our vocabulary over past weeks is a word that largely describes the shutting of the proverbial stable door. It is what you do when you know that a horse has bolted. The ‘S’ word has a terrible air of management-speak about it. People have been severely harmed by the Church but we still talk as though ‘good practice’ for the future is the most important issue. We will learn lessons; we will make sure that we will provide the best possible training to monitor our work in the future. We ‘will listen and act in accordance with safeguarding legislation and good practice’. This last sentence is a direct quote from the Archbishops.
As I write these words the image that comes to mind is the aftermath of a terrible battle. The fighting has stopped but there are men lying with a variety of wounds around the battlefield. Some others are walking, merely shocked and disorientated. Others are too damaged to be able to move. A group of helpers comes on to the field. Their task is ostensibly to help everyone. But they lack even the basic medical skills required to minister to the badly wounded. It turns out that they are trained only in one particular sphere. They have been sent to rally and encourage the defeated troops. These skills will unfortunately only work with those who have not been wounded. They have been trained by the Ministry of Morale and they have taken all the latest courses in encouraging an army to fight again after an engagement.
Our band of helpers is of course moved by the sight of so many wounded men and they do what they can. But they have not brought what the wounded actually need – bandages, splints, pain killers etc. Some of them need to be taken to a hospital for lengthy treatment. These wounded soldiers have no interest in the morale boosting rhetoric which is what the helpers are trained in. Their focus of their attention has been reduced to a single aim – that of healing and recovery.
The Archbishops’ letter was a bit like a team of helpers who arrive at the battlefield with the wrong training and the wrong equipment. A survivor who is wounded in any area of life knows what he/she needs. The wounded survivor of sexual abuse needs to be heard; he/she needs counselling by those who understand the religious dimension of the abuse. Their need is also to feel that the organisation they belong to has real insight into how the abuse occurred. They know that when power is given to the wrong people there is enormous scope for things to go wrong in a church. Further, if the people who rise quickly to the top are possessed of any grandiose tendencies then those at the bottom, especially the battlefield wounded, will not be able to attract their attention. If bishops behave like generals far away from the front-line, the needs of the ordinary soldier will be low in importance.
Janet’s important letter was a plea on behalf of the ordinary wounded members of the church who have, up till now, normally suffered silently as the result of their sexual abuse. Their perspective is frankly different from the perspective of Archbishops and other dignitaries who are concerned for the morale and wellbeing of the wider army. But the wounded who still lie on the battlefield deserve to have a voice and they cannot be blamed if their voices cry out for justice and healing. They may have arrived at the point where they are only aware of their pain and their feelings of being abandoned by the rest of the church. Can we expect them to have the same concern for the army when they are nursing their wounds and wondering if they are even going to survive?
The care of survivors will always involve far more than words. Words may indeed make their plight far worse. I am reminded of that passage from Epistle of James where the hungry person is offered only words. The epistle author takes a very dim view of the failure to offer food and practical help. The Church needs to get its house in order in terms of support and relevant solutions. It needs to be prepared to spend considerable sums of money to provide the sorts of help that survivors say they need. As a first step there could be a meeting when senior bishops and the National Safeguarding Team meet survivors. The agenda should be agreed beforehand and should broadly follow what the survivors themselves have determined. As an act of good faith on both sides, an initial meeting need have no lawyers present on either side. I hold a great deal of respect for the abuse lawyers I know, but I feel that, with the right degree of humility on both sides, human communication would be better by their absence in the first instance. The generals need to visit the battlefield in person to listen to their wounded soldiers. When some broad understandings have been established then is the time for detailed negotiations and agreement which would involve professional representatives on both sides.
Janet’s letter to the Archbishops seems to have begun a process of listening and communication in this area which, we hope, will never be reversed. As an aside it has shown the power of digital communication. For good and ill, Facebook, Twitter and the humble blogger will affect the Church in ways that were inconceivable even ten years ago. I, for one, am proud that the existence of Surviving Church allowed Janet to have a voice and thus be heard by large numbers of people across the Church.
In terms of your metaphor, it’s not only the attitudes of the generals that need educating. We seem to have the situation where many of the ordinary soldiers don’t care what has happened to the wounded, or can’t bring themselves to face their pain. It appears they want the reassurance of ‘business as usual’, ‘nothing for me to worry about here’, and this is what the generals feel should be offered, rather than anything more challenging. Or perhaps they want to hear ‘this is being taken care of properly so I don’t need to be personally more involved, and there’s no threat to the bits of church I value’.
On the other hand, many of the ordinary soldiers are appalled by the reality that what we’re really talking about is more akin to the damage done by ‘friendly fire’ than wounds inflicted by any external enemy. This provokes soul searching. The morale of this segment can only be raised by their seeing that the truth of the survivors is respected and heard, cover-ups put aside, efforts towards healing are genuine and real change is happening – even if this obviously comes at a cost.
Metaphors seldom work perfectly. I think I focused on generals rather than ordinary soldiers is because it is the generals that were the target of Janet’s letter. I have no doubt you are right but we have at present a crisis in the bishops not ‘getting it’. When they do then there is more chance for the rest of the church. We need a revolution in attitudes at all levels.
I think the metaphor works pretty well – making the situation visual and concrete like that makes a pointed contrast with the actual army which does its best to save the wounded on the battlefield (even if all their aftercare isn’t perfect in every respect). The point of mentioning friendly fire was to focus more attention on just how dysfunctional the situation is. Another way of doing that would be to meditate on how little the church has learnt in 2000 years the message it is meant to live and proclaim in Mark 9.42, not putting stumbling blocks before little ones.
Hi, sis. Stephen, thank you for the illustration. Yes, those in power in the church don’t think in terms of binding up the wounds of those who have been hurt. They only think in terms of moving on. And if you can’t get up and move on, they blame you. This is a huge failure of love. Personally, I do indeed want to see action taken and changes made to reduce the chance of more victims in the future, of course I do. But I want to see the victims that we already have helped and recompensed, too. Why do those in power find that so difficult to understand? I recently found at that the new incumbent who got rid of me, also got rid of an NSM who wanted to stay on. He got a parish of his own, so it wasn’t all bad for him. But he’d already been promised a house for duty which didn’t materialise. Well done, Stephen. All these years of patience have paid off. Let’s see if it bears fruit. In amongst what are probably hundreds of emails, there is one from me. Wishing you and Frances a Happy Easter.
Dear Stephen
I write hesitantly as someone who has not, at least not significantly, experienced abuse in the way it Is being used currently. Having followed the IICSA hearings on Chichester reasonably carefully, it’s hard not imagine that such forensic scrutiny won’t impact on the Church of England, and other institutions, in ways that are perhaps not anticipated. For example, there is comment about the limited executive authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Might this fuel pressure to have a much more centralised Church?
I felt that that the two legal counsels who conducted the questioning during the hearings had done a great deal of homework but they didn’t inhabit the same environment as those they questioned. This lead to some curious interchanges. I’m not being critical of this: I am however led to ask some questions. One is about the identity of the church. As we address cultural change, address the consequences of violation for our common life, what kind of ecclesiology are we working with? We’ve heard sharp criticisms of ‘hierarchy’, using that word in its pejorative sense, though it has a constructive, godly, sense too. Does this mean that we want to get rid of the clergy? And if so, how shall the life of the emerging church be ordered? What kind of church is needed to carry forward the Great Commission? It will be helpful if people are beginning to explore this.
Janet Fife in her ‘raw expression of pain’ (as you put it) chose to dethrone the Archbishops of Canterbury and York. This is the equivalent of throwing eggs at unpopular public figures. It releases pent up frustration. Later we have to find a way of getting together to work through the institutional consequences of the challenges imposed by the findings of inquiries such as IICSA. I agree there should be consultation but there also needs to be critical distance. And this takes time. Responses to the Archbishops’ Pastoral Letter havé described it as inept, and perhaps it is. Janet asks to be drawn into the discussion; yes, and this applies to other groups who are marginalised as well. Let’s however have in the front of our minds that image which you find in Isaiah 2.2 for example, an image of the People of God reconciled and respectful.
Shakespeare, unsurprisingly, poses the issue succinctly
“To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them?”
Survivors are, I believe, winning the battle. Now, how are we going to build the peace?
Fankasitrahana: You raise lots of good issues. The Church of England has had a severe shock to the system and I cannot say that it is all bad. This blog has been going on about power distortions in the Church for four years and IICSA has exposed many of these. One of the problems has been the way that there is not always honesty in the dealing between those in authority in the church and those in the pew. There is a mismatch between what the Church really is and what it thinks it is. If there really is a facing up to what has gone wrong in the past re survivors and spiritually abused, that will change many things including the way the clergy understand their tasks. I don’t know what the future will bring but I am hopeful that where there is truth and honesty, something good will emerge. We may be at a Good Friday moment but Easter will follow. I think of the aria in Brahm’s Requiem. Ye now have sorrow but I will come and no man shall take away your joy. I hope you will visit this blog in the future. We need contributors to keep it alive and in dialogue.
Stephen, I like your image of the battlefield and the wounded being giving talks on morale rather than medical treatment. However, I would take it further. The lack of medical assistance is due not to ignorance or poor training, though that would be bad enough. The casualties’ wounds are untreated due to deliberate decisions by the generals not to invest resources in this way, and not to admit that any casualties have occurred.
As for a meeting with the church authorities, it may well be inappropriate for there to be lawyers present, but I would not want to be part of it without some kind of representation or support. The power is too heavily weighted on the side of the bishops. Perhaps some kind of mediation would work. But the bishops will never agree to it.
Fankasitrahana, I am sorry if my blog offended you. I’m aware that some people may have found it difficult to read. I do feel it rather unfair, however, to accuse me of ‘dethroning’ the archbishops or throwing metaphorical eggs at them. I did not query their right to hold office, or insult them. If you followed the IICSA hearings carefully you will have seen that ++Welby, when asked how he wanted to be addressed and whether ‘Archbishop Welby’ was what he preferred, replied ‘address me in any way that is convenient’. This followed on from his earlier statement that he wanted an end to deference in the Church. Indeed, that deference has repeatedly been identified as one of the root causes of our inability to deal with clerical abuse.
The IICSA hearings, as well as the multiple earlier inquiries, are recognising that the Church of England has a very serious and widespread problem of sexual abuse within it, and that survivors of that abuse have effectively been re-abused over and over again by the Church’s responses. It’s too soon to say that the survivors are winning, when we are still meeting with stonewalling and denial. Until that is addressed, I’m afraid there is little chance of peace within the Church.
Janet: the comment about who would potentially be present at a meeting of survivors with bishops is of course hypothetical. In their ‘strong’ we stand together mode, then very strong advocacy would be required. But if they start to behave like human beings with a dose of empathy, then such representation would not be necessary. You and I have heard that as the result of your letter, the strong united front among the bishops has started to crack. In one cathedral your letter was given out at the same time as the Archbishops’ letter. So things are changing and you have helped them to shift.
And in one the pastoral letter wasn’t read out at all! I’m so pleased things seem to be moving. Not here! But it’s encouraging it’s happening somewhere. I’ll try not to be too gloomy!
Compare and contrast the responses of the Australian cricketers to the ball-tampering scandal with the leadership of the C of E and the abuse scandal…!
I am a practising Christian and a psychoanalytically trained child and adolescent psychotherapist and adult psychoanaltically trained psychotherapist. My practice includes long term work with survivors of sexual, physical, spiritual and emotional abuse.
The Anglican Church needs to begin to accept and use the expertise of professionals like myself in its training of clergy, pastoral workers and in referring those who have suffered abuse. survivors of sexual abuse from within the church have been doubly abused …. but the individual perpetrator and then the institution. I know I am not saying anything new but remain concerned that the Anglican Church may not recognise its need for robust boundaries particularly within its pastoral work.
Your comment about boundaries is important: it seems that counselling for victims/survivors paid for by the church is dependent upon the counsellor reporting to the church what has been disclosed.
Who is challenging the church about this?
See http://archbishopcranmer.com/church-england-deducts-30p-child-abuse-survivor-counselling-expenses-dayrider-ticket-cheaper-two-single-fares/
Ouch. Hereabouts they expect you to pay for your own counselling!
Welcome bestbees. Things are beginning to change behind the scenes and, thanks to this blog, I am in touch with some of the shakers. If you would like to have potential communication with some of those involved with making things happen, please drop me an email. parsvic2@gmail.com
Hi BestBees – could you drop a tweet to @Badfaithed and be in contact. I am wanting to bring some of the practitioners working in the area of protection and surviving abuse together in an up coming conference. Look forward to your contact – thankyou
Can you send me your e mail address?
I like your metaphor Stephen but I don’t feel it goes far enough. Many of those wounded soldiers will stagger to their feet time and time again, calling for help and to be heard but the generals will see that and come and knock them down again. Each time the wounded stagger to their feet but get knocked back down they will find it harder and harder to survive and eventually young soldiers like Neil Todd will choose death rather than life.
I don’t attend church and have no faith left to attend it for anyway but today I will remember all young soldiers like Neil Todd and Guide Nyachuru who did not stagger back to their feet.
Hi Trish
I think until very recently your view about the wounded soldiers being knocked down again would have been spot on.
I have been silenced for 16 years by the church but just in the past few weeks I have detected that something has shifted for me.
Perhaps it might be related to the fact that I turned up at the Inquiry wearing a placard stating “I discovered last Friday that a Bishop is trying to silence me.”
There has been noticeably more engagement with me since then!
JayKay8. I am glad you too have noticed a shift in attitudes. Janet will not mind me saying but her letter was made possible by something moving in the church caused largely by IICSA. It is something called a tipping point. Once the point has been reached, the dominoes start to fall very quickly. I think that is what is happening now.
Yes, I think it is Stephen.
If it is of any help to victims/survivors to know this, when I was observing the Inquiry in the annex room with the placard mentioned above around my neck, I was approached by a diligent member of the police who asked me about my story in case it was something for the police to pursue.
There were also plenty of counsellors available with whom I could speak.
If felt that it was a “safe space”.
That’s brilliant. Your placard made me laugh!
Yes, it’s vital to remember those such as Neil Todd and Guide Nyachuru too. Thank you for posting their names here.
Thank you for this news JayKay8 and brilliant placard. I do hope that you and Stephen are right, sadly I don’t think this attitude has reached the diocesan secretary of my diocese yet who rules the place far more than any Bishop and hasn’t allowed me to talk to the DSA or any of her team for over a year, (and they obey), and has just told me I am not allowed an Authorized Listener either. Will get my placard ready for the next hearing but it may have a lot of ****on it!
Hi Trish
If it’s a safeguarding issue then do remember that the Charity Commission will be interested to know.
http://www.gov.uk/government/news/regulatory-alert-to-charities-safeguarding
There seems to be a pattern of the church refusing to do anything unless the issue is raised with an external organisation.
Thanks JayKay8 I have thought about the charity commission but am still recovering from the futility of reporting the church twice to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) for breaches in data protection. The hearings revealed that I had good reason to be concerned however after initial good noises from the ICO the church solicitors waded in and they turned tail and fled. This happened twice so I have been left very wary of contacting the charity commission.
Stephen I am quite sure the NST read this blog and if they do they know full well who I am but just in case they are in any doubt and in case this helps anyone else, at the hearings Graham Tilby said this, ‘if things aren’t going well in a diocese, with a situation, if survivors needs aren’t being met we would expect it to be referred to us.’
As it doesn’t mention self referral and the diocese that isn’t meeting your needs is unlikely to refer you it may be difficult finding someone that will, and if you do don’t get your hopes up because you will be told that the NST will talk to the diocese but because all dioceses are autonomous they can’t really do anything. The NST is a chimera. However if those responses are sent to IICSA for the 2019 hearing surely to goodness that is reason enough for a recommendation for independent oversight by someone with the power to actually act.
Trish, are you saying that the ICO “turned tail and fled” in response to the involvement of church lawyers?
I know from my own experience that church lawyers mislead survivors and try to obstruct justice and any healing but it’s interesting if they are trying to do the same to an independent organisation such as the ICO.
I’m wondering if there any pro bono lawyers reading this who might be able to help? I doubt if you are the only person with this sort of experience.
When are Justin, John and the rest of the Bishops going to start taking responsibility for the actions of the lawyers they employ? Maybe we need to have a specific forum where survivors can share their experiences of how church lawyers have acted, so the picture of what has happened and is happening can be reflected back to them.
And if this is brought to Justin’s attention, may I suggest he starts by reading the report of his Provincial Registrar, John Rees, in response to a CDM complaint I made in May/June 2009.
It would certainly seem that way to me JayKay8. If anyone has ever tried to make a subject access request from the church they will know just how quickly the solicitors slither out. On both occasions when I felt that I had not been fairly treated and made a formal complaint to the ICO, which is an extremely demanding process especially without the funds for a solicitor, they did make positive noises at the beginning. However after the ICO talked to the church this all quickly changed and I was made aware of a solicitor’s involvement because someone from the church mistakenly copied them in to an email to me. The problem with the ICO is that if you don’t agree with their findings you have to write to your MP to get them to represent you (I think that’s right I have all the paperwork) and subject access requests will often reveal that MP’s are reluctant to challenge the church.
Hi Trish
Yes, I’ve had two different experiences of MPs challenging, or not challenging, the church.
Maria Miller initially wrote on my behalf to the Bishop but didn’t get a helpful response. Then I moved to a different constituency, showed the new MP how I had exhausted the CDM process and was advised to burn the file!! (I didn’t and managed to get the MP to put his advice in writing.)
Maybe we need another forum to share the experiences we have had with MPs, in addition to one for church lawyers.
I actually made a subject access request on 19 March and it seems that it is being acted on at the moment and I expect to receive the documents next week.
Your SAR should be acted on in accordance with your legal rights (bet they didn’t waive the £10 fee!) but it is the content of it that you may find very disappointing. If you have done an SAR to check that all your documents are there and not in a bonfire at Lambeth Palace you may be fine but if you have asked to see what other people have said about you that may be more problematic. Also if it is this variety please be careful that you choose a safe space to read it in. I discovered a senior Bishop had called me ‘trouble’ and ‘likely to cause trouble’ as well as various people calling me manipulative and not safe to be around men! It was extremely distressing. If you have any problems give me a shout if you want and I can ask Stephen to pass on my email address. Fingers crossed for your SAR response!
Thanks for forewarning me about needing a safe space to read the information the church hold on me.
Actually, I’m quite looking forward to receiving it as it might give me some more useful material for my next placard….”They called me a trouble-maker when I raised my concern” or something similar.
I had also wondered what bonfires there have been at Lambeth Palace, and then I realised John Rees’ report would barely have even generated any light if it had been burned! Fortunately there are other copies of it in existence for the appropriate time.
Oh, guys! This gets worse. I have never had the courage to get other organisations involved, and from the look of it, I’m really glad. Obviously, if you try to sort it out, things just get worse. That is what happened to me when I got to see the Bishop. He thinks I’m bonkers! And has treated me accordingly. I’m fairly sure the church didn’t give me all the paperwork when I asked for my records. But there is some evidence that there was a clear-out when there was a change of bishop. And a clear-out at Head Office at the change from George to Rowan, which may have disposed of all my records. They talk to each other instead of you, and you never get to find what they are saying about you behind your back. The data protection act doesn’t operate down a phone line or across a coffee table.
I am hearing criticisms of the NST from other quarters. I am sure that the powers that be who want to do something honourable over helping survivors are feeling equally stuck with the system. I cannot believe things will not change after recent events. Institutions which are shrouded with secrecy can sometimes hides their problems for a long period. When these same institutions are exposed to the light then sheer embarrassment, if nothing else, brings about change. The difficulty of the Church moving to uniform standards of safeguarding has to find a solution, surely. You cannot blame churchmanship issues for the inadequacy of protecting children from harm.
I am surprised at the lack of replies that people are receiving from the Archbishop of Canterbury. A couple in my Church recently wrote to the Archbishop saying they were leaving the Church of England because of its slow slide in standards and morality -homosexual and transgender issues most recently annoying them. They showed me the letter they received from Lambeth Palace in reply, admittedly penned by those given the task, but it arrived quite timeously. Of course the big difference here is that this wasn’t an issue of law, money or reputational damage where lawyers needed to be consulted.
It appears that defence at all costs rules the day.
English Athena, sorry I couldn’t see the Reply feature at the end of your post. What I’d like to say is that, Yes things did get worse the more I took my concerns forward – as evidenced by my MP advising me to burn the file – but I get the impression that a corner has been turned with IICSA and stories coming out in public.
While you have probably saved yourself from additional grief by not involving other organisations in the past, you may find that the situation is different now.
I’m so sorry that your Bishop has treated you as “Bonkers” (I’m thinking of an appropriate placard at this very minute for you.) I will say that Peter Hancock treated me and my placards very respectfully at the recent IICSA hearing, after I’d experienced 16 years of being silenced.
Thanks! I don’t always get the reply button up, either. I also have heard that people can’t reply on my own blog. I have ticked the box, so I don’t know why. I have been fighting on too many fronts for twenty years. My husband was bullied, I was bullied at work as well as in the church, and I have raised an autistic child. I needed a nurturing environment, and I didn’t get one. The church has robbed me of twenty years of my life which could have been happy and productive. I didn’t do anything wrong, my face just didn’t fit. The Bishop told me I needed counselling. I’d already seen a counsellor, who said I didn’t! But the Bishop, being a Bishop of course, knew better. Basically, I need to get myself sorted. Since I’m not unsorted, that’s not possible. Stuffed! Meanwhile, he obviously thinks that excluding me will make me feel better! Not impressed. http://myblogaboutbullyinginthechurch.blogspot.co.uk/
English Athena, I’m so sorry to hear about your experiences.
Just a thought: when your Bishop told you that you needed counselling, what if that was just an example of “stupidity, incompetence and lying” (to use the words of the Bishop of Buckingham)? How would that feel to you, if your Bishop’s words to you were seen in that context?
Because that is the context that we are seeing emerging at the Inquiry.
Oh yeah. I know that. I also suspect he thinks the hectoring is just normal. Knowing no better. He was probably treated that way himself.
Athena, I’ve tried to post replies on your blog a couple of times. This afternoon I wrote a couple of paras, then went through every option on the pop down menu but they all turned me down (are you sure the C of doesn’t control them?!). Maybe you have to belong to Google or AOL? I don’t have an account with either.
I’m sorry you’ve had such a tough time. The Church is good at doing that to people. It must make Jesus weep.
You say on your blog you have hopes I’ll get somewhere. I haven’t got such hopes, and Sentamu’s letter certainly didn’t give me grounds for any. But I do see signs of a thaw in the long winter the C of E has been putting so many of its adherents through. The archbishops have lost control of the narrative, and bishops are beginning to break ranks. That is very significant. And we have two more sets of hearings to come.
Long ago the then Dean of Guildford advised me that if nothing else worked, the media will often manage to get results from the Church. You might try telling your story to a sympathetic reporter – it’s a good time for that kind of action. I was considering it myself before I wrote my blog. And I might still do that. Imagine if we all did that? Bishops beware!
Thanks Janet. I have tried to sort it. When I go on the “reply” function does come up. I do use Google. I’ve no idea how much difference that makes. People did reply to it before on an earlier series of largely experimental posts. I’ve got a spot in the “allow comments” box. I’ve even tried checking it and unchecking and checking again! I’m sorry that Sentamu’s letter didn’t seem that promising after all. I’ve considered newspapers. I’m not sure I’m that brave. Proof of bullying is hard to find. And quite often people just think you’re incapable of coping with the normal rough and tumble of life. Like my current Bishop. I’d be put through it if I upset them!
Janet, I have hopes that you will get somewhere. It might feel as if it is two steps forward and one backwards but I think you’ve done something very significant: you are helping survivors to gather together as a community and to support each other.
If you didn’t get hope from John Sentamu’s letter to you – so what? It’s just another piece of paper for the Bishopthorpe bonfire. (I doubt that they are short of paper and files…)
But first I think there’s a very important question to be asked about why it was marked as strictly private and confidential. You spoke for many in the Survivors Community, Janet, and I think many of us would like to know what this letter said and why it didn’t give you – and probably the rest of us if we knew – the hope that you would have liked. I’m wondering who could ask the Archbishop these questions on behalf of all of us? A journalist perhaps?
I think you’ve started something that is now unstoppable – “A Survivors’ Spring”!
Thank you, JayKay8. However, I credit Stephen with starting the Survivors’ Spring and giving us a forum.
Archbishop Sentamu’s letter was very similar to the joint ‘pastoral’ letter – it took several paragraphs to say not very much. What was really evident from his reply is that he had not read either my blog or my original letter with any attention, let alone looked at my file. I have never claimed that my childhood abuse was connected to the Church of England, and my original letter concerned events which occurred when I was an adult and ordained. His letter assumed I’d been abused as a child within the C of E.
Ok – I’m happy not to debate who started the Survivors’ Spring, but let’s celebrate that it has started!
It’s disappointing that the letter was as it was, but I think there is still a very important question raised about why it was marked as strictly private and confidential. It might be because John Sentamu felt it contained information that you wouldn’t want anyone else to see (such as a secretary, if you have one) or it might be in order to try to shut down the issues you raised in your open letter. If it’s the latter then it is important not to submit to it.
Could you ask John Sentamu whether there is anything in his letter that he wouldn’t want to be made public, and if not then you are free to publish his response (redacting any very personal information if you wish) and to publish why you feel it is such a disappointing response. Do you think it demonstrates that he has learned anything from your original letter, such as running it by a survivor before sending it?
As survivors it is so common to feel intimidated by this sort of thing; we might be perceiving secrecy being perpetuated when there was no intention of it, but that in itself could be a very useful learning point for John and Justin.
JayKay, there was nothing in Sentamu’s letter that seemed to merit privacy or confidentiality, but it is a technique he often uses. I suspect, as you say, it’s to shut down the public conversation.
At the moment I feel pretty fragile and not inclined to continue the correspondence with him. However, that might well change after a few more days’ rest.
Thanks for the advice and for your concern.
And yes, thank God the spring has started!
Have a joyful Easter. He is risen!
Yes, we start to recognise the familiar techniques!
One of the benefits of survivors speaking out is so that others identify these techniques too in their own cases. I found it very reassuring to read one survivor point out that he’d received the response from someone in the church hierarchy (a Bishop?) say that his “hands were tied” as I’d received this response from a Bishop shortly beforehand. However, as we’ve heard at the Inquiry, and as Richard Scorer pointed out, “a bishop is king in his diocese” – so who is tying his hands?!
I can imagine how fragile you feel and your first priority is to yourself so I do hope you get the rest and recuperation you need.
Happy Easter and start of Spring to you and all others who are reading this.
You too, jay.
English Athena in an earlier comment you wrote this, ‘They only think in terms of moving on. And if you can’t get up and move on, they blame you. This is a huge failure of love.’ No one who writes with such profound understanding is ‘bonkers’ or is to be dismissed.
You saying that was very important to me and how can helping someone ever be considered as ‘bonkers.’
Thank you, Trish. That’s very kind. I think it’s important that people minister to each other. And our own experiences can help other people. I know I’m not nuts. I was poking fun at the Bishop’s perception of me. He manages to at once not really believe I have been bullied, and tell me that I haven’t recovered from this abuse that he thinks I haven’t had! So I need counseling. Which of course makes me wholly unfit for any kind of ministry. Now that IS bonkers!
I hope those on this blog will find this prayer I wrote in Holy Week helpful.
Almighty God, in your crucified Son you show us what love means and in his resurrection you lift us all to life with you.
Where your church has forgotten that its place is outside the city with those who are discarded and abused,
call it outside again. Where it has settled for a forgiveness that does not dare to face the harder truth, call it deeper into your mercy. Where it has spoken of love and yet has acted without compassion,
call it into your heart –
there to encounter the bruised soul of a broken child and so come face to face with you.
Make your church, kneeling and sorrowful, a place of transformation and healing,
where all find compassion and belonging, all are set free, and all can find you. Amen
Thank you Katherine, that is lovely.
Thank also Katherine. Your prayer captures well the need for a fresh perspective by the church to go outside the boundaries to a place where there is no defensiveness but only love and acceptance. I hope others will find this helpful. Welcome to our community of those who care about these issues and for the victims of abuse. We seem to be growing at present!
It’s brilliant. Long may it continue.
A beautiful prayer Catherine ….. thank you.
Something hopeful is growing freely alongside the grief and sorrowing ….. we can all take strength from this.
To avoid making yourself vulnerable, anyone can contact another via me parsvic2@gmail.com . There is no point in publishing email addresses when it is not strictly necessary. Bestbees and badfaithed I will try and put you in touch with each other.
Thank you Stephen!