Today (Friday 6th) the Church Times has devoted two pages to the issue of safeguarding following the IICSA hearings. These were concluded as far as the Anglican section was concerned, on Friday 23rd March. The editorial, reviewing three contrasting approaches that are published, calls for a ‘more sophisticated and intelligent approach to safeguarding …’
It is the first of the articles, the one by Bishop Martin Warner, Bishop of Chichester that I want to examine. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2018/6-april/comment/opinion/safeguarding-bishop-of-chichester-what-we-got-wrong-steps-we-are-taking-to-put-it-right I realise that most of the offences mentioned in the Inquiry were committed before his arrival in the diocese in 2015, but his article points to some areas of naivety on his part about the whole child abuse scandal. At the beginning of his article he refers to the case of Roy Cotton, one of the notorious paedophile priests. He accounts for the failure to stop Cotton’s offending behaviour by making a series of observations about the context of his ministry. The Bishop blames four things: academic and social snobbery, the manipulation of episcopal patronage and an over-lenient pity for him at the end of his life.
These explanatory observations as to Cotton’s ability to escape justice for decades are very unconvincing. Without going into the detail of Cotton’s ministry or the way he was able to escape accountability, I would suggest that Warner’s interpretations of what went wrong with Cotton could be expressed very differently and more robustly. This is my re-articulation of what Bishop Warner may be trying to describe. There was in the Chichester Diocese a rampant old-boy network at work. This grossly privileged male clergy of certain social and churchmanship backgrounds. Roy Cotton successfully exploited the culture of deference and dysfunctional exercise of power that had permeated the diocese for decades. This enabled him to remain in post for his entire ministry without challenge. The corrupt power structures that kept him in post involved others. Individuals, as yet unnamed, colluded with Cotton and protected him from the civil authorities. Whether these protectors were senior clergy or fellow incumbents, a miasma of guilt still remains in some areas of the Diocese. Evil flourishes when good men do nothing. In the case of child sexual abuse, I am not sure whether it is ever possible to be an innocent bystander. Unaddressed guilt within the Diocese still pervades the structures and needs to be exorcised.
Bishop Warner appears to ‘get it’ when he makes the statement ‘Survivors understandably describe this as conspiracy and cover-up …..many have testified that this was a damaging as the abuse itself.’ He then goes on to speak about the way Archbishop Rowan’s Visitation took place in 2011/2. This has led to new lay-led structures which, among other things, will bring survivors into touch with people trained ‘in the work of independent domestic and sexual violence advocacy’. This sounds to be helpful, but I still do not hear the profound sorrow for what has happened in the past. The statement ‘We are ashamed of the (the failures) and are profoundly sorry’ does not address this issue adequately. Bishop Warner goes on to say that he is not ashamed ‘of the people, lay and ordained, lay and ordained who have worked with determination and courage to change our culture and our practice ….’ Why do I not find this statement convincing? It is because Bishop Warner has not apparently understood the depth and extent of the suffering caused by the culture of his Diocese in the past. Dozens if not hundreds of individuals are still out there and we still have not heard of substantial resources being devoted to their support and healing. Until this help is visible and easy to access, protestations and offers of help will seem hollow and remote to the needs of survivors.
Let me summarise what was revealed by the hearings that were pertinent to the Diocese of Chichester. In the first place there were numerous examples of power being abused and we are not just talking about the sexual abuse. Abuses of power happened when there were failures to exercise authority responsibly and with care. When Bishop Kemp allowed the Diocese to be separated into autonomous episcopal fiefdoms, accountability among the bishops ceased to be exercised properly. That created the possibility of power being exercised locally and corruptly by area bishops. This culture of collusion then seems to have infected some of the clergy. They in some cases proceeded to protect and defend each other against outside scrutiny. All these power shenanigans which were revealed in the Inquiry were deeply harmful to those who were the victims. Complaints were deflected or unheard in many cases.
The second observation I have to make is to note that Bishop Warner has not grappled with the theological implications of safeguarding. Linda Woodhead, in the same edition of the Church Times, has written eloquently about the failures of ecclesiology and eschatology in the Diocese. I do not want to repeat her excellent points but theology’s absence in Bishop Warner’s piece is noteworthy. The abuse of power by clergy is and was a matter of theology. Anyone who allows an attitude of grandiose superiority to become internalised through adherence to a catholic teaching about holy orders needs to take care. An inherent superiority felt by clergy over lay people is a dangerous attitude. All too easily it can descend to abuse and other power games. As a clergyman I am also aware of the many biblical quotations that can be quoted to affirm my position of power in a congregation. I would in practice never use them because I believe text quoting for this purpose to be entirely inappropriate. Further teachings about forgiveness in Catholic and Calvinistic settings need also to be urgently re-visited and, in some cases, repented.
Bishop Warner’s article says many of the right things while leaving behind the impression that he still feels the show can continue as before. The challenge for the whole Church of England is to recognise that some things will never be able to go back to the old patterns of the past. However much the Church will resist this, accountability will be given to outside bodies when it comes to the protection of the young and vulnerable. The training of clergy will, in future, contain an element of ensuring that they fully understand the responsibility to understand and use power well. Supervision may enter the vocabulary of ministry right across the board from Archbishops to humble curates. The church needs to become an accountable body not only to its own members but to society as a whole. Only when it has taken the steps to understand the implications of accountability can it start to regain a rightful place in the estimation of the nation.
It’s odd that Bp. Warner should have chosen to concentrate solely on Cotton. Bp. Benn has spoken of a whole ring of paedophiles in his area (East Sussex). Does Warner think the same snobberies applied to all of them? Clearly there was something more at work.
Linda Woodhead quotes Archdeacon Jones saying of Gordon Rideout that he ‘took the view that he had been forgiven by God, his slate was wiped clean…as if the abuse hadn’t happened.’ I knew Gordon quite well in the early 80s (or thought I did). He was still making excuses for abuse then (‘maybe your mother wasn’t responsive…that’s what a man does to a little girl if he loves her…’) and misusing his power over people. And he hadn’t made amends to those he had abused – in fact he made them go to court to relive their abuse. That isn’t repentance. Repentance means deep and lasting change.
Creepy. Sounds as though anyone who really thought he was sorry and had changed was totally wrong.
Spot on, Stephen. It’s been said before, but no one is talking about what the church can do for the victims, in order to put it right. Also, the big institutional sin is the caste system. That needs to go. Yes, proper supervision. If you give people absolute power and no supervision, some of them will abuse it. That’s just statistics. And you can’t go on as if nothing has happened. If you have changed someone’s life, or robbed them of twenty years, rebuilding a relationship with them, if they are willing, involves starting from where you are now. You, the church, are now an abuser. Justin said it, you can’t altogether trust an abuser. You have to take into account twenty years of bullying, or neglect, or years of violent sex, followed by years of neglect. Most people, not just clergy, think the best thing is not to talk about it. Talking about it goes back to doing something for the victim. Listen. Whenever they want. It helps.
So well expressed. I would add to that, that the church now has to reach out and be part of the spiritual healing and recovery process as victims have been treated like modern-day lepers by many people of the church.
Thank you Stephen and for all these responses.
Yes, the church needs to face its own endemic and structural sin and not use any more ‘clever’ defences to attempt to cover itself. There needs to be repentance and then a revisioning. Business as before would add further insult to injury.
Reaching out to survivors inside and outside the church needs to come with foundations of humility. Advice, consultation and listening to those well trained in the field of childhood trauma and it’s impact upon development I see as part of this process. The church cannot ‘pray’ away this pain but must engage … lamentation
Bestbees I agree with you completely about the need for the church to use the experience of well trained people such as you. I have an extremely well trained NHS psychotherapist (as I have a mental health history due to clergy and other abuse) but because my therapist tells the diocese that how they are treating me is not only wrong but unsafe the diocese want, have almost insisted, that they pay for my counseling with someone else so that I can ‘move on.’ This would suggest that they are more interested in compliance in a counselor than training.
That is scandalous and so wrong. And that kind of pressure is all you need. No survivor should be pressured to move on, it has to happen in your own time.
Trish, this is outrageous and shocking. There’s a misunderstanding also about ‘moving on’ too … in my view people need to be given the long term space to grieve and integrate their experiences of abuse .. over time so that we can hope for the beginnings of restoration in this life. .. This is a life long process and perhaps beyond. It’s not a question of moving on but living with … if that makes sense.
I worked in the NHS for many years and am wondering if there are other examples of the church trying to ‘gag’ highly trained mental health specialists?
I have been aware that church has been reluctant in using therapists with the robust and secular training I have had. It’s again all about boundaries …. I find it deeply troubling and am hoping now that with things being stirred up there may begin to be a way forward.
Bestbees I’ve come across the church’s reluctance to allow people time to grieve many times. Of course you need to move on eventually. But that doesn’t mean forgoing any healing process, or even reflection. Perhaps in the interests of future potential victims.
Sorry bestbees, I was agreeing with you! That may not have been apparent.
“Move on” is French for stop talking about it. If it is medically right for you to talk, can you get that in writing as an opinion? And get the Diocese’s response in writing, too? The Bishop or safeguarding officer should not be able to overrule the medical professional in a medical matter. Would they feel as free to instruct you to change cancer treatment, or antibiotics? This is monstrous. Try to make sure it’s all written down. And if necessary, go to the papers. You can’t let the church block your proper treatment.
Thanks for these comments, it makes me feel better about not being able to move on. I hope the church takes notice of your comments on the subject Bestbees. Also as the offending clergy person was simply shuffled to another parish ten minutes away without anyone in the church being told why, (yet strangely my mental health history became quite public ) it feels as though I have no justice. I think this is fairly common practice in the church but as we have all seen with Hillsborough, people can’t move on without justice. There is a lot of work to do in the church Bestbees, don’t give up, people with your experience are invaluable to survivors, if not the church.
No, you mustn’t feel pressured to move on. And I do hope you get justice. The church has done far too much of the moving on the guilty and blaming the victims, it’s sinful. And there is seldom just one victim.
Exactly. That’s what happens.
Sorry, that was a reply to Lyn Reed.
Chichester seems to have been a cosy place with Kemp/Hinds friends and relations. This last week Dear Leader has been doling out Lanfranc and Cranmer and Langton awards to friends on the bench. The C of E is very cosy indeed. Is this the clericalism that he condemned at the IICSA hearings?
Cosy for insiders, but hellishly freezing for outsiders, including victims and whistleblowers. And that’s not just Chichester.
So true, and not just England. Also can add anyone suffering from PTSD.
I recognise the power games still being played in the placing of clergy over congregations who are kept in the dark about the anti-women priests attitude of their incumbents. There is NO mutual flourishing except where the light is shone to ‘prove’ otherwise. I have lived here since the beginning of 1985. Eric Kemp was carefully placing ‘his men’ in rural parishes where they could keep the rest of the Church of England safely at a distance. One serial adulterer, after some time in exile in the West country (away from people who know him), is now back in the diocese in charge of a team ministry. I wonder whether he has reformed? As with predators on children, predators on women do not change their spots.
‘These were concluded as far as the Anglican section was concerned, on Friday 23rd March. ‘
Actually that was just the hearings into Chichester Diocese. There are further hearings into the Peter Ball case in July; and into the Church of England as a whole in early 2019.
Excuse me Janet. This was written with speed and with passion. I do recognise that there is more to come in the hearings. Rosina, you obviously know more than the rest of us about Chichester. I knew Kemp before he became a bishop but can imagine that his mark on the diocese has continued long after he retired. Other dioceses that I do know better have suffered because of partisan appointments and the effects are felt many years later. One of the problems is that it is extremely hard to remove clergy. There are still many who have the freehold. They are effectively unsackable. One parish I know had a congregation go down to zero but the incumbent clung on refusing to retire. He did go eventually but the damage in that area was massive.
Stephen, are clergy still just as hard to shift on common tenure? Is it possible to get one to move if not leave the job? Am I right in thinking that all posts accepted after 2011 are as common tenure?
Trish: as I understand it, under (old) freehold, clergy are almost impossible to shift. Under CT an incumbent is difficult to shift; a Priest in Charge is more easily shiftable. See https://www.churchofengland.org/more/clergy-resources/national-clergy-hr/common-tenure-faqs
Thanks Stanley, I will look at this. You would think it was in the best interests of the church to keep dodgy clergy as Priests in Charge so they could shift them quietly if more complaints came in. I don’t know how these things are decided though and I am sure they won’t be consulting me anytime soon!
I don’t think that it is inevitable that the culture of any organisation can’t be changed, but such change will take time, perseverance and an intention to continue with change, whatever the resistance that is met. But and it’s a big But, the Church corporate and local needs to be educated on the need for change. How we do that is beyond the scope of this response.
Many listening to the Chichester hearings, will be sitting uncomfortably, knowing that conditions similar or akin to Chichester have existed or still exist in their own Diocese and hoping against hope, that they will not be found out or held to account.
The Armed services had an embedded culture of discriminating against women, homosexuality and of overt bullying, which were called out in the late 1980’s, through brave people who took them to court, all the way to Europe.
Change was needed and was directed. Robust policies were put in place on the Culture and Beliefs and Ethos that had to be adhered too, and the first step in that process, by allowing Gay men and women to be open and to serve alongside without fear of discrimination and being ‘outed’ dismissed or prosecuted for their sexual identity.
The Senior staff across the board in the services predicted doom or gloom, but the more pragmatic ‘people in the lower ranks, said “so what – about time to”, which showed how out of touch the senior staff were with their own people.
The people chosen to implement the new policies and to deliver the education, and cultural change needed – found that it was hard going, particularly with those who resisted change, but it worked through perseverance and education and where necessary, the application of disciplinary measures where appropriate.
Nowadays, cases of bullying or discrimination rarely hit the headlines, although historic cases still arise and people’s view the organization is coloured by what happened in the past. It will be the same for the Church for the foreseeable future.
More recent service cases that have hit the headlines, have tended to be about negligence in command and supervision and the failure of the mechanism of accountability, which have cost lives, both on operations and in the home environment, in training for operations.
Failures of leadership in the armed services and the church have similar outcomes. Lives lost or ruined.
Buck passing, as in the Chichester case (self protection), also appeared in the Armed Forces, where relatively junior ranks feature in prosecutions, while more senior personnel have often appeared to have escaped censure.
This is a failure of moral leadership and responsibility, owning up to your mistakes and repentance for them is needed in both environments, owning up to failure and acceptance of the consequences demonstrates true repentance and striving to make things right is the main objective.
A life lost or ruined is the consequence of such actions and forgiveness will be hard to come by, or deserved, unless repentance is seen to be genuine and that reparation is also made swiftly and openly.
No secret deals or non-disclosure clauses, as they perpetuate the damage and cause new harm to those affected.
The only way that the church can move forward seems to me to separate Safe Guarding from the Church structures and move toward an external, independent service.
Anything less will I believe be seen by survivors as a cop out and refusal to accept the reality that nothing less will suffice.
Our Cathedral finally got around to acting on the pastoral letter this week. Copies were slipped into the service sheet without comment. It does seem to me that a huge change could be effected by stopping people from believing that not talking is the right response.
Can I plug in to people’s knowledge here? To whom do you report technical breaches of the children act? Not doing DBS checks, for instance, or retired people not taking PTO but continuing to work?
I’ve been out of the system for 4 years now and I understand that things have changed during that time (!), but I would try the relevant archdeacon in the first instance (unless you happen to know the archdeacon is hopeless). The diocesan children/education/youth adviser should be able to point you in the right direction.Or, if you are able to contact the DSA direct (which couldn’t be done in York Diocese up until I retired) you could start there. Contact numbers should be on the diocesan website.
They would have known. And I know from experience how the church treats the bearers of bad tidings. I want to be able to contact an outside agency, like the police. And if possible, anonymously. No whistle blowers’ hot line?
You might already be a member of MACSAS. They offer support.
http://www.macsas.org.uk/
Every police force and local authority Safeguarding Board have direct lines for ANYONE to contact them to discuss a safeguarding concern. ANYONE, yes I am shouting that as there seems to be a popular fallacy that safeguarding concerns must be channelled within the organisation. Whilst it is good practice to speak with an internal body first for advice and guidance if the matter is not progressed, acted upon or otherwise dealt with and shown to be the case, ANYONE can report outside of the system.
One of the things that constantly terrifies me is numbers turning up after the fact with stories from the past of the perpetrators, or incidental information, once there’s a crack in the damn. I do not seek to diminish the responsibility of senior clergy in subsequently not handling allegations appropriately but responsibility in this is universal, anyone who does not challenge and deal with issues of safeguarding are culpable too.
You could try your regional police Public Protection Officer, but I don’t know if you can talk anonymously. You can always ask. I’ve found them quite helpful.
Thank you, Stephen. This makes painful reading. And, as someone who lives and worships in the Diocese of Chichester, this is a pretty reliable reflection of what was going on for far too long. But… I am not sure that, by picking holes in Martin Warner’s piece, you are really doing justice to the root-and-branch change of culture he has effected here (and continues to). I am not just referring to safeguarding, but also to giving women a voice and visibility (despite his own theological convictions over the ordination of women), as well as his determination to empower a theologically-literate laity.
I am sure there is no intention to do so, but some of this reads a bit like ‘open season’ on traditional catholics (of which I am not one) as if they are exclusively to blame for all this horror. You might disagree with +Martin’s analysis of why abusing clergy escaped detection and justice; but that does not negate everything he has achieved in a relatively short space of time. You might also have said that, since +Martin became our bishop, Chichester has recovered a sense of purpose, openness and energy. My experience ‘on the ground’ tells me this is not a comfortable place to be if you are lazy and complacent, and I know of instances where traditionalist catholic clergy have been left in no doubt that they need to up their game.
A ‘theologically literate laity’? To what purpose? If ‘the laity’ were actually being given roles where they could use their initiative, I would have hope, but I, who am theologically literate, and have been for years, can find no place to function with my teaching skills. I doubt I would pass the ‘mutual flourishing’ test, so would fall at the first hurdle.
I do not see any change in our part of the ground. It’s not a question of churchmanship – both extremes guard their own patches. I am not sure what is said in private to clergy, but I see no outward bearing of fruit in the form of a more generous attitude towards women who disagree with the gender apartheid.
You are not theologically illiterate, do not think that and do not let clergy tell you so. The creation and maintenance of professional elitism is borne of such thinking. Theology is a common task and your skill, knowledge and experiences have as much if not more to speak into that process as someone who has sat in a college for 20 years pursuing the translation of ‘ek’. That church does not recognise and take advantage of your attributes is the failure in its in ecclesiology, its ‘mutual flourishing’ disabled by not engaging your experience in its crafting of theology.
Harry. I had no information about Chichester beyond the Inquiry and the Bishop’s response. His words did not convince me that he was on top of the cultural and theological legacies that have been left over from the past. That assessment based on his words may be faulty but I still maintain (backed up by Rosina) that Chichester has a massive public relations job to put in hand. After the battering that his diocese received I expected much more in the way of metanoia and humility on his part. The article was not persuasive that he really understood the depths of suffering caused to individuals by clerical abuse. Let us see for example for a start substantial donations to the organisations that help survivors and the coordination of a new team locally to meet and help those who have suffered. Let Chichester set an example to the whole Church of England that they are really serious in helping victims from the past. That has not yet happened as far as my sources tell me.
And, if he believes that he has now got the best practice sussed, when can we expect to see all Dioceses adopting the same practice?
Just a ‘by the way’ – to some inside the church here who have not been personally affected, it all seems ‘too much of a fuss’. Unless the powers-that-be highlight the need to change OPENLY, doors remain closed for the whispers to continue in secret.
Harry, it’s good to hear that things are improving in my old diocese.
What I miss from Warner’s article, however, is a description of the practical steps that are being made to atone to victims for all the harm that has been done them. Has a sizeable chunk of funding been put aside for their counselling? Has compensation been offered? Is he putting time aside, on an ongoing basis, to listen to their stories and learn from them? Is he taking advice from survivors on how liturgy and diocesan services could be improved? Does he appoint survivors to influential posts within the diocese, so they can have input into policy and procedures?
Words are easy. What we want, and the Church needs, is deep-rooted change.
Yup.
I take very seriously the point Janet Fife is making, and the experience she has bravely shared with the wider world gives her point particular integrity. I think I would simply want to say that it is very easy to go after +Martin for what he has not said; or because he has not yet given a detailed account of what he, in collaboration with the rest of his senior team in Chichester, intends to do in the future. This was a fairly short article with a word limit (likely as not written amid the demands and disciplines of Holy Week, and the immediate aftermath of giving evidence and hearing the evidence of others for the first time); and written, I am guessing, to a specific editorial brief. My experience here in situ is that this is only the beginning; and any suggestion that it is business as usual in Chichester is, frankly, laughable.
As for any disappointment that is being felt because individual theological skills and gifts are not being used, this would not be for lack of determination on +Martin’s part. There are now many more opportunities in the Diocese to become involved in a process of discernment for an authorised ministry (lay or ordained). It has to be discerned and authorised (a) because we are an episcopally-ordered Church (and that is hardly a recent invention of either Chichester or +Martin); and (b) because the absolute necessity of the safeguards we are all agreed need to be in place (for everyone’s safety) demand that those exercising a ministry have official recognition after appropriate training, and therefore the confidence of those being ministered to.
It’s good to get an insider’s perspective. And quite a few commentators are saying +Martin found a woeful situation and has worked wonders. Fair dos. The problem is, no one is talking about what to do about/with/for the victims. That’s quite a big omission. Has he done stuff, but didn’t chose to write about it? That would be a pity. In this case, what he has chosen not to write about, or perhaps hasn’t done (yet) is of significance for those of us waiting for the church to put things right.
The point I am making is that episcopal and clerical power has been exercised with a bias to those who are partisan – Safeguarding is not an issue! The cliques within the diocese are, and those clerics hold the power to ignore and put down. And they are in still in place. The problem is not episcopal and clerical power but how it has been grasped and administered. ‘Authorised ministry’ is seen in very narrow terms. In that way, control is administered and authority siphoned through few outlets, stifling growth and education of the laity.
No argument there Rosina, still struggling with the switch from one to the other personally – Would quite like to have some lay members who are interested in learning and growing responses together… and yes a much broader vision of authorised ministry is desperately needed. Hoping that arguing for it with a collar on might get somewhere.
Could I have a definition of “authorised ministry” please? Lay members interested in learning . . . together? I’m afraid I have loads of experience of clergy who aren’t interested in lay ministry. I’m a bit confused about what you would like to see.
English Athena: I don’t know whether your question of ‘authorised ministry ‘ is for me, but my delight would be a Yeshiva type set up where we can study the Biblical and other texts with no holds barred – the more argument the better! There is one in ‘Yentl’ which always brings me to tears – her delight in being part of the excitement of discovery of new ideas in the old. That isn’t really ministry at all, but a whole new culture – yet a very old one from the inheritance we Christians have forgotten.
That sounds great. Count me in!
It does! But my understanding of the term authorised ministry would be mostly Readers and Clergy. And I’m not getting that meaning from other posters.
There are other forms of authorised ministry in some diocese, such as parish nurses, evangelists, and pastoral workers. And Church Army is national.
In my last parish I inherited untrained and unauthorised ‘readers’ who led the ante-communion. Because they weren’t trained they had the attitude ‘this is the way it’s always done’ rather than ‘here are the options, let’s see which are most appropriate for this theme/service/season’. They were also used to, and considered normal, one or two local traditions which were odd and unhelpful. Not their fault, but frustrating to work with. So, I see the point in having people who are trained and authorised.
Interestingly, Martin Warner, then Bishop of Whitby, agreed with me that it was best to leave these unlicensed ‘readers’ in place as there were more important issues to tackle first.
There’s no reason a parish couldn’t organise no-holds-barred study groups, yeshiva-style, and any lay person can lead those.
I query ‘any lay person can lead those’!
In a parish where the incumbent puts great store by his authority which also rests on a excluding women from the priesthood amongst other things, such a group is a threat to his stability.
Of course, people need to be educated in the way of worship etc – I have found that the church has been more and more prescriptive. When I read the lessons, I used to pick the Bible translation which most suited the meaning and the congregation – as in school. Sometimes I would even re-translate the text to make more sense – or add the alternative meanings where the original is a pun. Once the church restricted the readings to one version only, that went out of the window. Eventually I left, objecting to clerics who ‘know best’ when they don’t!
Dumbing Down has been the order of the day. Clergy might pay lip service to theological education, but they don’t want it in their congregations – unless you toe the Party Line!
Yes, Janet meant that any lay person CAN lead Bible studies, discussions and so forth. Not that clergy are always OK with that. I agree, they often aren’t. My experience suggests that there are frequently unauthorised lay ministers taking the place of Readers. Which is not just frustrating, it is unkind. A new incumbent will often replace the people doing things with new. His wife for instance! A friend of mine, a Reader, used to work with three such people whom she described as lay preachers. She led the services and they preached! My protests that Readers are lay preachers fell on deaf ears.
When did the church (CofE) restrict the readings to one version only? In my benefice we use both NRSV and AV usually and others ad hoc.
I know there are other forms of ministry, Janet, I was simplifying! My experience seems similar to yours. Untrained people being given authority for which they may be ill equipped. It makes me very cross. The trouble I’ve had being included in the teams I’ve supposed to be part of. And then someone else smiles sweetly at the Bishop and they get it poured into their laps and running over with no selection or training. Rant, rant!
Bishop, Priest, Deacon and Lay Reader in the C of E.
Yeah, that’s my understanding.
I need to clarify when I say ‘Safeguarding is not an issue’. Of course it is! I was responding to the excuse that things have to be controlled because of ‘Safeguarding’. In the past, there was tight control over who was allowed to exercise ministry, but this was woefully inadequate for ‘Safeguarding’. I detect a tendency to make ‘Safeguarding’ the excuse for continuing in the same partisan way as before, protecting the ingrained clericalism. THAT is the Issue.
If all that happens is that Safeguarding Teams are put in place in every parish with the incumbent and churchwarden as key members, what has the Inquiry achieved?
I am looking at parish websites and finding no improvement. Chichester could start there.
I would also expect public reference to the Inquiry in more than asides. There is nothing in the Chrism Mass sermon. Nice theology – but nothing about the responsibility of those who administer the sacred oil. I felt this was a key omission.
I am personally relieved that there was nothing in the Chrism Mass sermon. I applaud +Martin for resisting the temptation to be a rent-a-quote – or for his words to be taken out of context in the media or the bloggersphere. Quite properly, his clear focus was Jesus Christ, the great High-Priest and Good Shepherd. If we model our lives and ministries on him, with authenticity and integrity, that puts safeguarding into its proper perspective, where power and the misuse of power is seen in the light of his cross. That’s where good theology begins – and ends.
That’s certainly where good theology begins. However, both good theology and good preaching attempt to apply what we see in, and learn from Christ to the situation of ourselves and our hearers. In Chichester Diocese, just after the IICSA hearings had ended, seems a very good opportunity for + Martin to refer the gospel reading to the situation of the diocese. There are not many times & places when the bishop can address most of his clergy and Readers at once, and the topic would have been on everyone’s minds.
The reply button hasn’t come up, wayfarer. In response to your question, which version or versions of the Bible are used is at the discretion of the incumbent. I have been fortunate enough to be in a situation where it didn’t really matter what you chose. There was a lady with very bad rheumatoid arthritis who always used the NIV lectionary because it is small and light. I usually chose the AV for Christmas. Where a church has a lectionary instead of a Bible, it will usually be an NRSV. That’s “recommended”, but there’s no compulsion, it depends on the incumbent. It is handy if the preacher is going to quote from it if he or she knows exactly how it will be phrased! One thing I don’t care for is when the incumbent insists that everyone reads only from one edition (in most of these cases it will be the Good News) and gives out page numbers only, for people to follow. I think it impoverishes the congregation. They should know how to find their way around in any Bible.
Re Bible version. The Diocesan Liturgical Advisor issued a decree to be obeyed. It’s good to know that people in other places still have a choice. Of course, when the passages are printed on a pews sheet every week, I suppose it makes sense to our supposed barely literate congregations, that the words which are read out loud coincide with the words on the printed page. Gone are the days when people were invited to bring Bibles with them – with as many different versions as possible.
Ok thanks, now I see precisely what you mean, and a depressing situation it is. We do print our readings on pew sheets according to the NRSV, but that doesn’t stop one church reading always from AV and another using AV when it’s a BCP service. I have to say that in our churches there are a few pew Bibles available, but I wouldn’t think more than 1% of the congregation if that would expect or bother to look anything up in it. On the other hand we have fun at our Bible study group when people all bring different versions with them and we compare them all.
Clue is in the job title ‘advisor’ – decrees are not part of the remit. Your parish does not have to accept it and can choose which version to use… and if people do struggle to read, why confuse them with bits of paper, let them focus on listening.
It’s up to the incumbent. If they take it as an edict . . . Also, I wonder if they’re hiding behind it?
Yes thanks, it’s as I thought – there’s no compulsion in general, and I see now Rosina was probably referring more precisely to the situation in her own congregation.