Ten years ago, I used to belong to an organisation called Bridge Builders. This group, with links to the Mennonite Church, specialises in training church people to take part in mediation and sorting out the conflicts that inevitably affect churches from time to time. Although I was on a list of possible mediators for a time, the few requests that came in were impracticable for reasons of geography or timing. So, my potential skills as a mediator were never properly tested. The training was not however a waste of time. What I learned about mediation has proved useful in other contexts, not least in trying to understand the extraordinary problems that seem to bedevil the relationships between abuse survivors and the authorities of the church.
I should start by saying that mediation skills are designed to help two groups/individuals or more who are in conflict or strong disagreement with one another. The assumption is that each side diverges in the matter of a strongly held principle. It may be a local matter or a theological principle like the ordination of women or the gay issue. There also may be a conflict of leadership styles between a minister and his assistant. Mediation as a process is not appropriate as a way of bridging a chasm between an abuse perpetrator and their victim. The break that will have occurred in the course of an abuse episode between a victim/survivor and the offending institution/perpetrator cannot be repaired through the skills of a mediator. Mediation skills are about getting two more or less equal sides to listen to one another and to work out a way forward. The attempt to make a victim listen to the self-justifying rhetoric of a perpetrator will probably be counter-productive and potentially the cause of further harm to the victim. Victims need protection from having to deal with the delusional and narcissistic attitudes of their abusers.
As I thought about the way that mediation has little to offer in abuse situations, I began to think of conflict situations where such a process might be useful in congregations. The analogy that I began to explore in my mind was one of a boys’ school. Based on my memories of what used to take place in such institutions some 55 years ago, I began to see how words like mediation, reconciliation and forgiveness might work in this context. The first scenario would be two school boys in a situation of conflict as the result of a long-standing rivalry. They could be in competition over a girl friend or who should be the captain of a sport’s team. For various reasons the rivalry might reach such a pitch that someone could suggest mediation. Mediation could work if both sides accepted the process. The causes of rivalry would be heard out in a calm environment and hopefully a new understanding of the issues would be reached by both sides.
In contrast to a rivalry potentially resolved by mediation, we encounter in our imaginary boys’ school a situation of bullying, physical or mental. Such situations are hard to resolve and certainly the methods used would not be those of mediation. When one person has been bullied or damaged by another, the process of making things right will be costly and for that reason seldom attempted. Issues like justice and compensation will all have to be worked out if there is to be a path towards full resolution and reconciliation. A third party who wanted to help achieve this healing would have to be wise in all these areas of human interaction. There is nothing easy or automatic about bringing people together who have been divided by an act of cruelty or gratuitous misuse of power.
A further level of complexity is reached when, at our school, a boy with prefect’s responsibility misuses his power. For someone to bring full reconciliation into the situation, the school leaders would have to be involved as it was the power afforded to him by the school authorities that has been misused. In practice the issue would probably not be properly faced but, if it were, one possible outcome would be that the prefect would be disciplined or demoted. Clearly power, when given to an individual, needs to be seen to be used consistently and fairly. It is only in a corrupt institution that a misuse of institutional power is routinely covered up as a way of protecting the reputation of the whole school. When this reputation becomes more important than the attempt to promote good relationships at every level, then something has been compromised and even destroyed.
It will be clear that, in describing a hypothetical school that is trying to do the correct thing in repairing relationships and making them as right as possible, I could be describing the Church. Mediation for one kind of dispute is possible while the gifts of forgiveness and reconciliation can be deployed for others. Being at peace with others is an aim to work for in every congregation and perhaps, under the leadership of exceptional clergy, something near it can be achieved. But the disease of misusing institutional power is so common that it is sometimes very hard to find the place of safety and shalom for which all long. Sometimes we even forget to expect it because a culture of bullying and power games has become endemic in many of our congregations. Everyone learns to avoid closeness or trust, even while paying lip service to notions of love and mutual acceptance.
To return to an earlier blog on institutional narcissism, the Church all too easily becomes mired in institutional dysfunction without really realising that there is anything wrong. It is the casual mistreatment of the weak and abused to protect the interests of the strong that is the serious accusation of many survivors at present. If they are wrong is making the claim that survivors are routinely neglected and ignored, then we need to see the evidence to refute it. I have not seen it.
We may wish mediation always worked, because it seems like such a Christian thing. But there is a tension between the moral equivalency that has to be assumed for an equal mediated conversation, and the requirements of truth and justice, where there is a deep moral wrong at the heart of the problem. Imagine I have a dispute with my neighbour about the height of my hedge. We are both equal. She wants it no higher than 4ft. I want it 6ft. We have mediation and agree, say, on 5 ft. All well and good. But imagine my cat has been pooing in her kids’ sandpit. It’s wrong, but hard to call, and no solution may be fully effective, cats being what they are. The success will depend on how much mutuality there is going forward, as well as on the day of mediation. And how about this one. Imagine I have been in the habit of letting my dog poo on her front lawn when I take Rover for a walk every day. There is no moral equivalence here. What I’m doing is wrong, and the idea of 6 of one and half a dozen of another its inappropriate. I need to take responsibility, stop behaving that way, clear up, apologise. Failure to do any of those things will wreck the whole process. There’s no point saying “I’ve always done it — you haven’t complained before” or “you are so rude to complain about it” or “I am entitled to do it if I can get away with it,” denying it happened, let alone blaming the dog, or, worse still, the neighbour. The church has left tons of dog poo in the lives of various people. There’s no middle ground about the sort of disequivalence that would make mediation effective. It doesn’t sound very optimistic or even Christian to admit, it, but mediation just can’t achieve anything, and may even leave sufficient control in the hands of the abuser’s institution for it to try and cobble together moral legitimacy of a sort from having offered to participate in it.
I think both this blog and the above comment by Alan Wilson demonstrate why the healthiest way forward for those who have experienced deceit/cover-up/blanking/refusal to engage by the church is to walk away and find a refuge and place of healing elsewhere.
For those who have previously found love, acceptance and healing in the Christian church this is a major challenge, but if truth is being obstructed by the church then it will be likewise for healing. The good news is that, although one won’t find the perfect refuge and healing community, I believe healing and recovery can be found in the wider world beyond the church.
What about the next person? If jay is right that if the church abuses you, there’s no point in seeking restitution, or healing, so just cut your losses and leave, what about future victims? The first abuse I encountered was a female priest who had a history of picking on other women. She should have been stopped before she got to me.
Bishop Alan, some time ago, I asked you what your Diocese would do if I had come to you with stories of bullying and asked for help. I’d like to know if you have protocols for that kind of thing.
I think it’s important, if one has the strength, to document and hold on to the evidence of the church’s abusive responses so they can be used constructively in the future (hopefully to improve understanding and limit the number of future victims) but in terms of one’s own healing it can’t be found in the church until the church is truthful and starts to take responsibility for the harm it has done. There’s every point in seeking healing – but important to recognise that it will not be found in an abusive church.
You’re right, of course. But you always think it will change!
EA, there are policies for clergy and models in schools (on the diocesan website) within the framework of the national church policies on dignity at work (which are now getting fairly old). The educational ones follow the model of Bucks County Council. Various kinds of staff from DVA’s Visitors and bishop’s staff would all be expected to work according to these. The Oxford HR staff and Bishop’s Staff take bullying reports very seriously, in principle. In practice what helps most of all is a log of behaviours, otherwise bullies are apt to accuse their accusers of bullying and make it a “he said she said” thing. So the more evidence, the better. I hope this helps. If there’s anything you want to discuss offline, please do.
JK8 I agree — keeping a log isn’t easy, but in addressing all abuse of power it really helps. People do sometimes have good experiences in Church (though often not) but the chances of this happening are directly related to the degree of honesty of the response. They sometimes have bad experiences outside the church. I wish this were not so, and would be the first to say there is a long way to go to make the former a more prevalent experience.
Thanks for a prompt reply. I was wondering in a more narrative way, if you see what I mean. But I’ll look it up.
Having ordered my thoughts, at least a bit, and read the policy on bullying, I feel that what I would want is tea and sympathy in the first instance. Some allegations might usefully be dealt with by emotional support. Being given advice on keeping a log, very good point, maybe how best to deal with a specific incident, and pastoral support, are all valuable. Moving off into areas where punishment comes into equation obviously needs proof. But balance of probabilities can be useful, it does not have to be of sufficient forensic quality to stand in a court of law for an alleged victim to be given pastoral support. There can of course be false, or mistaken accusations, and hurtful behaviour that is unintentional. But unless you are going to go for a full investigation, you can still put the kettle on! I’ve also come across situations where the listener has no power to effect change. Frustrating doesn’t cover it! But it’s a good document. Thanks again.
Thankfully mediation has moved on considerably since the age old problem of the barking dog, now, particularly in inner cities highly skilled victim – perpetrator mediators are being used by the police to resolve serious conflict such as gang rivalry, gang rape, prostitution and cultural issues including FGM. Social services also use them with adult incest survivors. Mediators are highly trained, recognised by both national mediation bodies and fully insured. They are often charities or attached to a charity but this doesn’t mean they are free. Mediation operates far more along the lines of restorative justice for the victim so fully encompasses the fact that both parties are not equally balanced and certainly doesn’t depend on the mood of the moment. What these mediators achieve is truly mind blowing.
Mediation with these highly skilled people would be of huge benefit to abuse survivors and a church seeking to genuinely move forward and is completely achievable. The question is sadly, whether survivors have the tenacity to fight for the right to use these services.
Trish, wouldn’t the potential success of such mediation firstly depend on the church acknowledging that it has acted wrongly (e.g. if it has obstructed the truth) and being willing to engage with the victims? How can a survivor take the situation forward when a diocesan bishop has stated that he refuses to communicate any further about the issue raised?
Hi JayKay I do not underestimate the problems of getting the diocese to agree especially having experienced the same response as you about going away and shutting up. However what you may not realise, because I didn’t, is that if you research and find a mediator that you think will be helpful you can approach them and explain that you would like to try mediation but the diocese is rude and dismissive of you and give the mediators permission to negotiate/mediate with the diocese.
As regards the church not feeling they have done anything wrong, well no knife wielding gang member rocks up to mediation feeling that they have, but they still walk away agreeing to things that will help the victim. The hardest part of the process is handing over negotiations for the resolution you want to the mediator. As survivors we have struggled so long and so hard we trust no one to do these things for us but you will have meetings with the mediator on your own before mediation and have the opportunity to say all that.
It is important that the mediator you choose is skilled in serious conflict, has been recognised by UK Mediation and, has plenty of reviews especially from the police. This type of mediation is relatively new so do try to speak to other people that have used their services before making any decision.
Goes without saying that the church doesn’t want us to be doing this, well sod ’em you go girl if you want to.
Thank you Trish for your helpful response and it’s useful to know about this relatively new type of mediation with an appropriate mediator approaching the diocese at my request. I’m actually in the process of discussing my end-of-life care and plans with my family at the moment so I need to consider how best to prioritise using the time and energy I have left. As things stand, trying to communicate with people who have repeatedly shown no wish for truth or reconciliation is not high on my list of priorities, but it’s helpful for me to know about possible options and no doubt could be helpful for others too.
Of course JayKay I think your honesty and courage about your life limiting illness on this blog was one of the reasons I desperately wanted to give you hope. Even if it’s not for you things are changing in society and survivors are beginning to be able to access them to force change in the church. Your fight, your tenacity in the church has all been part of the recognition that is what needs to happen, so that now people outside the church are wanting to help secure justice for victims from the very institution that should be at the forefront of dispensing it. Your legacy to others has real meaning so thank you.
Thank you. My hope now is that those in positions of power have the courage to reflect on their actions, the suffering that has been exacerbated by them, and that they emerge with the wisdom and desire to contribute to the healing of those who have been harmed.
Amen.
Absolutely right – repentance is surely the first step and without repentance there can be no forgiveness. Mediation has to be a no-fault process, otherwise (and my experience is in employment tribunals) the matter must go to law. Mediation cannot be used to resolve institutional abuse of any kind.
Trish, excellent points. And encouraging.
Without mediation, without reconciliation we have separation and divorce.
“Divorce” is a one-dimensional remedy to a multi-dimensional problem relationship, be it a marriage, a leader/lead conflict or an institutional breakdown. Just leave.
Will I meet my abusers in heaven?
Is there some way we could achieve some sort of reconciliation here on earth?
This is an “abuse heavy” blog and rightly so. But I believe we could do a lot better here on earth to mediate reconciliation, repentance and forgiveness. Surely this is what church at its best is?
Not a flight from conflict but a total honesty of weakness. An attempt to begin a heaven on earth? Not a denial of misdeeds or a coverup of failure, but a wounded Body actively self-recovering?
Parties to a broken relationship are rarely equal. If a vicar leaves his wife she loses her home. If a vicar loses her job, she loses her livelihood. A dispute has unequal consequences.
Without reconciliation we are nothing as Christians.
How we get there is the next question.
JayKay8, I have been involved in various mediations over many years (including in Criminal Justice and community as well as church contexts) many noble and successful as hoped, but the problem you describe has been the exact wrecking factor for some of the Church ones. Blanking is very effective, and the most gifted mediator can’t find common ground with what is in effect an information black hole.
Thank you for your response, Alan. I trust that you are trying to explain to such bishops and their advisors how they are obstructing truth, potential reconciliation and healing for victims.
Trying to do so. They don’t often want to know, but hopeful cracks are appearing in the Dam.