Every so often I am contacted by an individual over something with abuse or a safeguarding issue. Sometimes I can suggest things or people to talk to in order to receive help. On other occasions I am left stuck.
I want to put on-line the outlines of a case with the hope that someone will know what to do and how to activate the processes of the Church of England to support a vulnerable adult. In this case things have now reached an impasse and I suspect that the case will in fact only ever be resolved when it is allowed to be handed over to the secular authorities. A church in the south of England has been the spiritual home of a middle-aged woman (we will call her Jane) for a number of years. Recently a very old friend of this woman re-established contact with her after a long time. She had known her well in the past and they had both attended an evangelical church in London for many years. The friend noticed that Jane had suffered a personality change of some kind and stopped communicating easily. She had moved to a smaller house in the area, and the move was visibly assisted by key people in Jane’s church. While Jane was serving the church as minutes secretary for the Church Council there was something odd and secretive about this role. Her friend noticed by chance on her computer that there were two directories on her word processor. One was marked ‘minutes’ and the other ‘changed minutes’. As the friend knew that the church concerned had been failing to publish its accounts for more than a decade and large sums of money had been acquired via undocumented loans (some of which the contributing churches were unaware had not been listed in congregational accounts) and then not properly audited, she was alarmed. As a church member elsewhere, she knew that the absence of these accounts and the secretive nature of church affairs was irregular and contrary to legal and church protocol. When Jane seemed unwilling to talk to her about any of these things, her friend began to suspect that there was some system of control over her in operation.
The Church of England follows the State in declaring that some adults be categorised as vulnerable. Jane’s friend began to believe that the excessive degree of paranoia and fearfulness together with high suggestibility were evidence that Jane was becoming or had become a vulnerable adult. She had signed documents in the past that she acknowledged she did not understand but said the ‘Minister had asked her to sign them’ so she presumed it was all right. Jane seemed totally unable to make any decisions on her own without reference to others in the church. While Jane seemed pleased to renew an old friendship, there were large parts of her personality that were out of reach. She appeared devoid of emotion and was often found “disassociating” – (seeming glazed). The friend wondered whether this was a case of spiritual abuse by the church. The changes to Jane’s personality, when she discussed them with others, suggested a clear case of institutional coercion and control. Normally when this diagnosis is given, it is a man who is pressurising the woman in this way. Was this a case of coercion and control by a church?
Jane’s friend decided that she had to do something about the situation. She consulted the web-site for her diocese and contacted the local Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser (DSA). She was impressed by the speed and efficiency with which he responded to her request for help. He took extensive notes and promised not only to make enquiries about Jane but to ask questions about the other issues connected with the church and investigate the possible financial irregularities including where any Accounts might have been lodged. He also promised to find the appropriate police contact to hand over potential evidence that had been gathered. (The relevant Bishop has also said in emails that he thought his DSA could point her to the correct police contacts to assist.)
The friend received the impression that this kind of case had piqued the DSA’s interest and that he was going to give it plenty of attention. He took copies of all the financially irregular and other legal documents shown to him. She heard from him once by email to say that he was trying to make progress and then the case was suddenly shut down. She had an email to say that she should visit her local police station or call 101. This response had the feeling of being formulaic as her local police station had closed years before. The friend’s judicial contacts confirmed that “someone must have got to him”.
What are we to make of this story? It would seem that the DSA had been ordered by someone in the system not to disturb the status quo. Something in the Diocesan structure was more important than the safeguarding of a vulnerable woman. Who is one to appeal to in such a situation? The independence of dioceses is celebrated but we can we can see that this story strongly supports the contention that independent oversight is needed. Why should anyone in the diocesan structure be able to close down, without explanation, a legitimate concern about a vulnerable adult caught up in an apparently abusive church situation?
The evidence that has been shared with me in the past about Jane leaves me with little doubt that the church concerned is one that exploits its members in a quasi-cult manner. Such churches sit lightly on the structures of authority, whether secular or ecclesiastical. Perhaps what I am raising is the impotence of the system of safeguarding to oversee churches that practise spiritual abuse. About twelve months ago there was a flurry of discussion about the existence and meaning of spiritual abuse, occasioned by the Timothy Davis case. Perhaps DSAs don’t feel equipped to deal with this situation as it touches on theological issues. But whatever else is true, there is a fragile vulnerable woman who has been robbed of her confidence and peace of mind to become a shadow of her former self. All this has been done apparently by a church. The Diocese where she lives and the DSA do not want to investigate or help. As they cannot or will not do anything to investigate or protect her, is there anywhere else that can assist in this situation? Is this a case where a safeguarding body, independent of the church’s structures, should be allowed to step in?
This is a disturbing case. I hope your friend has taken her evidence to the police – although this will not necessarily help the vulnerable woman concerned, it may at least prevent the church from deceiving more people.
But I wonder if you can clarify the following? ‘As the friend knew that the church concerned had been failing to publish its accounts for more than a decade and large sums of money had been acquired via undocumented loans (some of which the contributing churches were unaware had not been listed in congregational accounts) and then not properly audited, she was alarmed.’ I’m not sure what is meant here – though I realise it may be difficult to say more without identifying the church.
Potentially, Jane us being induced to knowingly break the law. Perhaps to assist in embezzlement, or at least not to report it. She may even be the church’s chosen scapegoat. The individual through whom everything passes, so that everyone else can say they didn’t know. Or even if not quite that Machiavellian, it might happen if the oojah hits the wotsit! Surely the secular authorities would be interested? Charities Commission? Audit Office? Another possibility is a journalist currently working on examples of church financial wrong doing. Jane also needs support. Her GP? And if I may be so bold, we, all who read this and are concerned, should pray for her. Let’s mobilise!
I think there are two strands to consider here. There is Jane and there is the financial inconsistency.
We know from what Jane’s friend has said about Jane that in spite of any emotional problems she has ‘capacity’ in the legal sense. This means that however well intentioned, Jane’s friend should not discuss Jane or her choices without her consent. As this post is from the point of view of Jane’s friend I wonder if she has gained this. The importance of gaining permission, particularly when abuse is suspected is that lack of choice underpins all abusive experiences and that lack of choice must not be replicated in trying to help. Jane’s friend is also concerned that Jane may be or is becoming a ‘vulnerable adult’. The definition and criteria for a vulnerable adult is very specific and is decided by health professionals not friends, this is because there are legal ramifications with the label. It is not a label that anyone wants or that is applied lightly. The church also uses the definition ‘people that may be vulnerable,’ because everyone is vulnerable at some point but it is not legally recognised by statutory services. So all Jane’s friend can do, as hard as it is, is to respect Jane’s decisions and right to confidentiality, listen and be alongside her should she ever wish to tackle whatever it is that is troubling her, which her friend is assuming is the church but may not be.
If Jane’s friend is aware of finacial irregualrity and has evidence of it then she can report it without even involving Jane. If the DSA has suggested she contact the police then she needs to do that if she is concerned. If she does that she can tell Jane that is what she has decided to do, and what Jane does with that information is up to Jane.
Your comment about capacity is very pertinent.
The safeguarding of adults is something of a minefield, and I think that even the law has issues here. The term ‘vulnerable adult’ in relation to safeguarding can have a specific meaning. When applying for a DBS disclosure, the ’employer’ can request information on whether the subject is barred from working with vulnerable adults. It should be noted that this is defined by the work done with the adult. The most common circumstances are when the worker is providing healthcare, or personal care (e.g. assistance with washing or toileting) or is assisting with money matters. So, when you go to the dentist you are a vulnerable adult within this meaning.
Probably because of this specificity, my own diocese in its safeguarding policy uses the term ‘adults at risk.’
Is this church within the Church of England? If it is, then the lack of published accounts seems very surprising. The archdeacon is not doing his or her job. The PCC is legally required to prepare accounts and its annual report and these are to be presented to the APCM. I presume that these are also to be sent to the Diocese and also to the Charity Commission (within 10 months of the end of the financial year for the latter). You can search for charities, including PCCs, and see their reports.
I am trying to make a comment but it won’t come through. This is a test and I shall then try again.
In answer to David. This church is a hybrid. It has Anglican ministers but other denominations are involved. That is what made the financial problems possible because no one was properly in charge. I had better not say any more. I do not expect there is any obvious solution. Technically Jane is not a vulnerable person and people are free to be bullied and coerced into a dependent relationship with a church and its minister. People in other words are free to ruin their lives, as Jane has done, by opting for a comfortable easy sort of believing which turned out to be destructive and certainly not conducive to her maturity or long-term happiness. That is the the problem with cults and coercive forms of Christianity.
Local Ecumenical Partnership? “Vulnerable” can be used in a lay sense. Plus, there’s spiritual abuse. It’s a bit like the rough sleepers who are free to drink themselves to death! Sometimes , intervention is right. Like my mother’s conversation with my Grandi many years ago. “I may overrule you, dad, if I think you need a doctor” !
This could also be reported to the Charity Commission.
I wish I could say that people who have tried to involve the Charity Commission over churches have had joy. The opposite seems to be true. Firstly the CC appear to be very much under-staffed and secondly they seem unable to exercise much power. The case going on over the Exclusive Brethren (in the Times today) is a case in point. If the CC have not taken action to protect the 17,000 members of the EB, they are not likely to intervene in the church that has avoided supervision to fiddle the books and allow one impressionable middle aged lady to suffer. The same lack of decisive intervention is apparent in the Evangelical Alliance.
I think it is very bad practice to comment on the decisions that Jane has made, particularly in such a judgemental way when it would appear from this post that she has not asked anyone’s opinion, people have just given it in a very public way. If Jane has not given her permission for this post, and if she has why is it her friend we are hearing from, this is incredibly irresponsible. If Jane recognises herself or someone else recognises her from the information that has been provided on this post and she has not given her permission not only is that contrary to the data protection act but given that no one knows how fragile her mental health is, is incredibly dangerous. I am extremely concerned by this post it is very misguided and contrary to any support or counselling advice.
We also have a duty of care to act when we see something wrong. The question is: what and how much should we do?
The particular circumstances stated here are sufficiently vague as to apply to numerous similar examples we could cite.
For example, off balance sheet loans are endemic in respect to church accounts, and not necessarily “wrong” per se. But they sometimes obscure who is actually financing the organisation. That person has more power than a casual reader of the financial statements might be aware.
Is there an impartial “investigator” who could pull all this together? Not really. The auditor, should the entity require one, has a limited brief: to be a “watchdog, not a bloodhound”. The police would investigate impartially, but only if the evidence warranted it. Even very significant financial shenanigans are notoriously difficult to prosecute.
That said, I believe our churches should promote financial transparency as best practice. Those who monitor these things should speak out, and be heard. For me, the “two or three witnesses” should include at least one independent one i.e. outside the Church.
The story of “Jane’s friend” is a disturbing one, and who wouldn’t want to help in some way? “She” sits on a spectrum of vulnerable people which, as I say, most of us would recognise. I agree that confidentiality of approach and consent, are essential. I don’t believe diocesan employed officers can ever be impartial.
Those who help the most, must elevate their acquaintance to unconditional friendship, to advocacy and to enduring reliability. A very few have done this for me, and I find their support inestimable.
I believe it’s vital that we continue the work to expose power abuse in the Church, however difficult it may be to do so ethically and effectively.
Part of the problem of the situation I have described is that there is no solution. The details of the story are deliberately obscured and may be fictional for all the reader knows, but they indicate enough to show that in each area oversight is lacking. When a church does not publish accounts, are Archdeacons really interested? When there is spiritual bullying and destruction of self-determination, who on the outside is there to take an interest? The Evangelical alliance published a paper a year ago denying that ‘spiritual abuse’ was a helpful term. This blog is raising these issues, not because there are solutions at this moment in the church’s history, but because by raising them at all another generation might be prepared twenty years down the line might look back and say how did they tolerate these things? ‘Jane’ is an archetype for suffering bullied women in churches. Telling her story, true or made-up, may help other women in the future. Let us hope so.
Regardless of whether Jane is made up or real and I strongly believe she is real, no good can come of setting an example for sharing details of a person’s life without their consent. Survivors have worked very hard for many years to stop the church doing this. When the SCIE audits begun details of survivors were given without their consent, though very vague people recognized themselves, others recognized them, and harm was done. When this was pointed out to SCIE they changed their methodology but did not remove the harmful ones that are contrary to the DPA, so for many of us the hurt is there for as long as the audits exist.
Discussing finacial irregularity is worthwhile because financial abuse causes a great deal of harm but discussing Jane without her consent is wrong. If Jane is fictitious make it clear that had she been real you would have ascertained her permission for discussing her on a public forum. If we cannot get things right today then tomorrow will be just as bleak.
I sometimes think this obsession with secrecy has gone too far and can be damaging. I was, in the distant past, sexually abused and relentlessly bullied.
I have also been involved, as a therapist, with people who have told me ghastly things. Sometimes people have asked me to share their stories to help others. I would certainly share mine. There are also people who have been so demoralised that they have lost the ability to seek help. They need to be spoken up for.
This blog, as far as I understand, is not a tabloid newspaper where voyeuristic readers are looking for sensationalism. It is, in the greater picture, a small readership of people who have experienced abuse or who care deeply about it.
I am not confrontational and am not interested in carrying on an argument online. I am just sharing an experience and an opinion which is as valid and worthy of consideration as that of other contributors.
Thanks. It seems to me that both are true. I have been damaged by clergy gossip myself. But I wish all the people who had said supportive things had followed through with supportive actions! There’s the little phrase, “Would you like me to take it further?” But what if the victim says no, but is clearly in danger? It’s a tightrope. You don’t want to take away their dignity, but the social workers who failed to act in the Rotherham child sex abuse case, did so because they judged the children to be making a lifestyle choice! Fictionalising a helpful case study is pretty standard practice. Sometimes it is right to act without the victim’s agreement.
Troubadour I would not normally respond to someone who begins their comment with, ‘I sometimes think this obsesseion with secrecy has gone too far,’ but then uses a pseudonym, however unlike Stephen you say you are, or have been a therapist and therefore may still be accredited under one of the main bodies that govern this profession. As you are aware the code of professional conduct for maintaing the confidentiality of adult clients who are not legally defined as vulnerable are very rigid with only a few exceptions. Even when using the personal information of clients as case studies for training purposes, however scrambled the details, verifiable consent should be gained.
If you no longer respect that code of professional conduct or the social care maxim of ‘nothing about me, without me,’ which underpins it and are still a registered therapist you need to be sharing your thoughts with your supervisor because however limited the readership of this blog you still do not know who those readers are.