A couple of weeks ago, I was musing on the topic of what the Church would look like if it could outlaw abuse and heal the legacy of past failures. Unbeknown to me, Andrew Graystone was thinking along similar lines and he produced a document entitled ‘An entirely different approach’. What follows here is not so much a commentary on Andrew’s paper as a parallel reflection. There are however some points that Andrew made which I wish to incorporate into my own reflection. He spoke about the need for restoration rather than mediation. Mediation would imply that there are faults on both sides, while the abused person in a church abuse situation is clearly a victim and needs to find healing and reintegration within the body. The main initiative and effort in the process should come from the side that has committed the offence. A further point is that the symbols that might be brought forward in the task of restoration and repentance should be new and able to transcend the tired message of the Church that it can carry on with ‘business as usual’.
These two ideas that I have lifted from Andrew’s piece are at the very heart of the Christian proclamation. The first centres round the idea of healing, restoration and reintegration. The second idea is that whatever is to be done, needs to bring newness into the situation.
Of all the passages in the New Testament, the one that I could preach on at the greatest length are the words from Revelation ‘Behold I make all things new’. These words have always inspired me because newness is a word that sums up into itself hope, change and the endless possibility of fresh beginnings. It also appeals to my dissatisfaction with words. Newness implies that there are always fresh ways of getting a handle on an idea. One can always receive newness as a Christian simply by opening oneself up to what is being offered to us over a lifetime. When a connoisseur buys a painting for a large sum of money, he does not expect merely to glance at it on the day of purchase and then put it away. He buys it with the expectation that the beauty that drew him to it on the day of purchase will go on revealing new facets to him. He never expects to grow tired of it. What is beautiful is endlessly new.
Christianity is a bit like a valuable painting. It shares with the painting an inability to be comprehended or explained easily or quickly. It needs to be gazed at, contemplated and allowed to reveal the constant newness of its inherent beauty. Beauty, as I have said many times before, points to the fact that reality is an inexhaustible source of truth and goodness. It is thus a powerful metaphor for the way that when we enter the courts of worship, holiness and stillness we can find ourselves in the very presence of God himself.
Andrew’s plea for a quality of newness to mark the way that apologies are offered to survivors is also a plea for the Church to draw deeply into its reserves of imagination. Through its traditions, its liturgies and buildings, the Church possesses a multitude of resources through which to articulate and proclaim the drama of restoration that is needed. Two parties have become estranged by the actions of one side. The failure of bishops and other clergy to protect the victims of sexual abuse is a deep wound as well as a tragedy. Even if the current generation of leaders are not directly complicit in the offences, they wear the same robes, they have the same titles as those who are seen to have failed in the tasks of protection of the vulnerable. Just as children have to carry on their backs, for good and for ill, the notoriety of their parents, so the occupants of the highest offices in the Church have in some way to own and take responsibility for the failures of their predecessors. The reputations of certain Bishops of Chester and Lewes in the past is not just a concern of historians. If any holders of high office in the Church from the past are shown to be guilty of an offence, it is right for the current holder of that same office to do public penance for those misdeeds.
In 2019 we are living in a situation of massive corporate guilt which is a wound on the whole Church. A huge effort of reconciliation is the only thing that may help to make things right. With Andrew I call for something brand-new to be offered to the Church and society. We need something far better than the tired apologies written by public relations experts and impression managers. What might be helpful are public rituals at every one of our cathedrals. There would be acts of penitence, lament and reconciliation between victims and abusers. Those actually guilty of such abuse are not the only ones to be drawn into such events. Everyone whose attitude of blindness and avoidance helped to facilitate abuse of the innocent over decades (and that means most of us) needs to be there. In practice it might be confined to those who hold office in the Church. They occupy a post and in many places they and their predecessors lamentably failed in the task of caring for the weak.
There is a further major change that I would like to see happen in the Church as it seeks to put things right with the survivor population. Given the fact that abuse is most often to be identified with dysfunctions of power within the institution, I would like to see the Church begin to study those sections of scripture which speak of reversing and turning upside down these power structures. One place that I find the outlines of such a fresh approach powerfully expressed is in the Beatitudes. As with many of Jesus’ sayings, the emphasis of the passage seems to be about the reversal of our normal ideas of power. Those in the ‘blessed’ categories are among the weak by the world’s standards; in the light of the Kingdom they are rewarded and honoured. Along with other preachers, I have many times preached on this power reversal in the Beatitudes, but the idea of honouring the weak seems to make little progress in the wider Church.
Can we imagine a Church where the values of mercy, gentleness, purity and peace-making are dominant? No, we find it hard because the contrary values of control, power and domination are so strong in the institution we know and try to serve. From time to time the Church does throw up as leaders individuals who are notably and genuinely without any trace of coercion in their manner. They welcome us, make us feel safe and we come to trust them fully. When such people do appear, we often find that they are not honoured by the rest of the Church but perversely are attacked for not being dominant and power-seeking.
Jesus’ words about power which are scattered throughout the gospels are challenging today as they were to his contemporaries. His preference for the weak, the outcasts and the poor is not just some kind of proto-socialism. Somehow, Jesus wanted us to see that no community, no society, can ever be healthy unless it cares for those on the margins. There are many on the margins today, it has to be acknowledged, in many different categories. But the group we are concerned with here, the victims of spiritual and sexual abuse have a special claim on our attention. Their needs need to be met and their wounds bound up. But above all the Church has to realise that it cannot itself be whole when such people are ignored and pushed to the margins.
An instant response:- brilliant. Especially the bit about how the abusers’ successors need to share the responsibility at least for putting it right. No one seems to “get” that. What does it say about how much/how little a bishop cares about you if it lies in their power to offer you tea and sympathy, and even recompense, but they just say, “nothing I can do about what another Diocese did”. There is, you know. You just don’t care enough.
Yes oh yes! A new response, that needs to be designed by survivors, to avoid the minimising, triggering, re-abusive response of the past. A focus on restorative justice, in all it’s complexity (no quick fix) Gathering s and worship )need both because worship may be too difficult for some) and public and private actions that give voice to survivors, validate and heal. Also need to be co-designed with survivors. I am one of many who would volunteer my services 😁 Is the original article publicly available?
Here’s a link. https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/The-Church-of-England-and-survivors.pdf
The paper by Andrew Graystone is on Thinking Anglicans, Jane.
Good comments Stephen and I agree with Jane that a lot of, perhaps most, forms of redress needs to happen far, far away from church buildings (I physically throw up if I go in one – it’s the smell) usually far, far away from Bishops and clergy in ecclesiastical uniform (I have regressed or passed out, when I have walked into a room with someone in a ‘dog collar,’) and often with no Bible anywhere in sight, (the passages make my head swim and my voices start).
To even begin to get near a huge number of survivors the church simply has to stop being church. It has to go to secure units, rehab units, prisons, on the streets, where survivors are. It has to go in plain clothes, alone and frightened, without hope or trust to share disorederly and chaotic lives, it has to hurt so badly that slashing your body with a knife is blessed relief and it has to see if God will walk with it.
Thank you Jane and Trish. Trish I recognise that among other things, churches/cathedrals have a distinct smell. That smell would register with a young abused child and potentially set off a trigger reaction. That is obviously only one thing but it is an aspect of trying to help survivors that could so easily be overlooked. Jane I have followed up with looking at your web-site. I am impressed with your self-help groups. That is something the church needs to sponsor but I am not aware that they have even started on this. Perhaps you could write a guest blog as to how the Church could promote this kind of help. On this blog I am always imagining things as they could be if people with power had a little more imagination. My email is parsvic2@gmail.com if you want to follow up on this.
Stephen that s two blogs I need to write for you! Thank you for the invitation. We have been busy taking our boat through the Panama Canal, but have more time now, so will start scribbling!
Church/cathedral services will not be right for some, but they could be helpful and healing for others. I too would be happy to offer my services as a planner, liturgist and facilitator. Many years ago I worked with Salford Council and domestic violence survivors to plan and lead a Zero Tolerance service in Salford Cathedral. I also tried to organise an Out of the Shadows service for abuse survivors in Manchester Cathedral, but sadly couldn’t get anyone to work with me on it. When I cancelled it the dean told me, ‘People like that don’t come here.’ Ironically, it later transpired that his predecessor had been an abuser.
I wouldn’t advise including an act of reconciliation between abusers and abused, however. This puts too much pressure on survivors to forgive before they are ready. And where the abuser still holds actual or psychological power over the victim, it could cause harm.
And yes, bishops need to meet survivors and victims in humility, without the paraphernalia of their office.
And certainly not with hate face and stabby finger, as happened to me! Mind you, I wouldn’t say the usual bland politico indifference is a right lot better!
Not here! OMG [hangs head in disbelief] Janet we used to run safe spaces and seminars and worship for survivors at Greenbelt and are in discussions about doing this again. Let me know if you would be interested in joining us, if we do. I agree NO raising idea of reconciliation with abuser. Massively complex and may never be possible. I would love to be at a service of reconciliation with the church, though. Where the church community apologies to survivors for failing to protect and respond well. I had hopes of the current ABC but the responding well pary isn’t looking so good at the moment…
Thank you Jane. I’d love to be involved, but unfortunately my health doesn’t permit me to travel. However I’m always up for co-operating on resources & ideas. Stephen can give you my email if you’re interested.
I have read the Andrew Graystone article Janet provided the link to now. Wow. Yes please. But as I said, you have to care enough.
Stephen – Not sure if you know of the more recent material on the Trinity Church Brentwood site
https://victimsofbishopmichaelreid.blogspot.com/2019/06/challenge-control.html
but there is also a response from a Simon Plant with some indications of help for victims of spiritual abuse. I know nothing about this but if you paste it up others may have better knowledge. Spiritual abuse is a continuing and serious issue.
Blessings in continuing to highlight the matter.
Simon Plant9 June 2019 at 08:53
This is really useful. I think the key for me is individual choice. Leadership, guidance and on occasion challenging teaching is necessary as is accountability. The key thing is there has to be an individual choice as to how to respond to those things. Accountability can be a healthy thing but this should never be forced or enforced and this should in the majority of cases be the choice of the individual. There instances where there needs to be accountability with less choice for example where people pose a risk to others and their behaviour needs to be managed. I agree that any behaviour that could be deemed spiritual abuse should be challenged but as you have recognised here challenging or leaving an spiritually abusive situation is difficult. For those in the UK there are sources of support available. Thirtyone:eight is a charity that provides safeguarding advice to faith based organisations including on spiritual abuse. They run a helpline that can be accessed by all. This runs Monday to Friday 9 to 5 with an out of hours service for emergencies (anything that can’t wait until the next working day). The helpline is 03030031111 option 2.
My wife and myself have also set up a support line for those who have experienced Spiritual Abuse. This has been created as a safe space to talk through experiences, to be a point of reference and support and to walk alongside those who contact us as they deal with the long term impacts of spiritual abuse. We currently run the support line 9 to 5 Monday Tuesday and Friday but these opening hours are under review. We can also arrange a time outside these hours to talk but ask for some flexibility as we have other commitments. The support line is open to people of all faiths and those of none.
http://www.replenished.life/supportline gives more information on what we wish to deliver. We are currently running off a mobile 07746 153 703 but if cost is a problem we can ring you back. Hope these sources of support will be useful.
Thank you, Leslie, that’s interesting and helpful.
I think the idea of ‘reconciliation services’ with the church needs to be approached with caution, and a wider understanding of the toxic framework in which the church responds to many survivors.
We are already aware that the Church will be seeking to use ‘reconciliation’ in the same way that they use ‘mediations’ – to isolate individuals and questions and patch over very major things. There is a considerable journey required by the Church of England before it can properly be considered fit to reconcile with in my opinion. That is not to deny individuals who may wish to have reconciliations within dioceses to help them move in with their lives. But many may not be able to move forward precisely because of their anger and disgust at the Church’s treatment.
Great care needs to be taken by those involved as advocates to prevent the church from using and reconciliations strategically. Cheap apologies are what the Church’s senior layer is seeking so that they can paper over cracks and avoid real recognition of impact and the cost and necessity of rebuilding many lives. The Church’s senior bishops are very skilled at applying industrial-strength handwash to all of this, and pretending none of this matters. We have heard recently the ‘happy survivor’ meme used by two senior bishops on the NSSG. And astonishingly one of those claimed to know “thousands of happy survivors” which was disturbing, if presumably a careless figure of speech.
So in my view, anyone seeking to create ‘services’ or ‘liturgies’ of reconciliation need to be aware that for many people currently any notion of reconciliation is out of the question and trust is at zero. Not until the Church addresses many questions properly and starts committing itself to mending broken lives. If it is looking for easy grace – then tactical reconciliation can do more harm than good.
Please be careful.
However, the ritual of ‘penitence and lamentation’ which Stephen suggested could be a good thing – a long as survivors have control over what is said and done.
Gilo, Janet, or someone, sorry this is a bit off topic but I read both of your helpful twitter posts about the CDM’s and no Bishops being disciplined, and it has really worried me about doing this . I simply don’t have the emotional reserves to go through all that if the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
However if I did do it what happens if the Bishop I am complaining about is on the commission? And also if someone else from my diocese is on the commission but the complaint is not about them?
Do you know?
Do they draft in other people, do they even care? Is it all just totally pointless do you think?
Thank you
I haven’t been able to find much. But I downloaded the form. The first sentence is that your name will be disclosed to the person you are complaining about. Which of course immediately makes your situation precarious if you are trying to complain about your own bishop. I think we need Froghole!
Thanks Athena. It is all very unclear what happens. It would be good if the Archdeacon investigated and brought the complaint, like that ridiculous piece of paper, the CDM, says they will, but if the Archdeacon is on the commision what then?
If it is all a set up that is a complete disgrace.
Has anyone seen the new document about Reader ministry? “Resourcing Sunday to Saturday”. Page 9, opposite a picture of baptism, (why?) a tag from Eugene Peterson. God loves you, God is on your side, He is coming after you, He is relentless. We need to make sure everyone is aware that clumsy use of language is out there and needs dealing with.
That is creepy and frightful. Where is the document issued from? Someone should point it out to them.
Central Readers Council. Bishop Martyn Leicester is the head honcho. I brought it up at the Deanery meeting. It wasn’t taken too seriously, I have to say, but I’ll take it further, if necessary. Our sub-warden is very on the ball, so he may mention it when he meets with the others and the warden.
Trish. I did do a piece on CDMs but I avoid the topic generally as I have no direct knowledge of how they work. There is a new C/E report about them just published and it is full of statistics which are very hard to interpret. Macsas have just published a comment which I cannot better. You should have a look if you have not done so already. It is on their website
https://www.macsas.org.uk/MACSAS-Press-Release-6-19.pdf This seems to be the link dated only yesterday
Thanks Stephen (and MACSAS) that was thoroughly depressing but helpful.
I don’t think the church really understands CDM’s either they seem to make it up as they go along and when someone challenges they say, ‘well these are only guidelines.’
This morning I have written to the powers that be asking for more information about what happens when someone is in a situation like mine, if I get a response, beyond the usual bugger off variety, I will let you know as I can’t be the only one in this position.
But from the MACSAS press release probably a whole load of stress for nothing which is what I imagine the church wants us to think.
Hi Trish,
I have limited experience of the CDM procedure. I took out one CDM against the current Bishop of Durham. It was dismissed by Archbishop Sentamu. But Bishop Paul Butler did a 20page response which he was not required to do. I suspect most would not do this. I didn’t bother to take out a CDM against another Bishop as he so clearly seemed to be under the protecting veil of Archbishop Welby. There seemed little point. And I was worn out at the time by having to deal with the combo of dishonesty and dysfunctionality of this structure. Still am worn out.
If you are frazzled and exasperated by the Church’s response to you, whether by a Bishop or diocesan structure, the CDM is likely to frazzle you more. It is quite time-consuming and takes energy. Especially when they start asking for clarifications and supportive documents.
The CDM has in my view become a discredited and worthless procedure for holding bishops to account. 2 CDMs were brought against Bishop Wallace Benn by Chichester’s own safeguarding department – both were dismissed. And if the CDM is out of their 1year time-limit, then it will likely be dismissed.
The CDM’s only value in terms of holding bishops to account is its embarrassment factor. But that requires a whole lot more energy in terms of working with media to get the story across. And most people don’t have the energy for this. Who can blame survivors, especially when cowed into submission by a structure and culture hardwired to protect itself.
The House of Bishops should acknowledge painfully and truthfully that at the present moment there is really no effective means for holding their culture to account. And the bishops should be examining very carefully and with great scepticism the advice given them by their registrars, legal officers and insurance advisors. These are the nameless invisible ones who have gotten bishops into any amount of difficult waters.
In my view, a Truth and Reconciliation council is required. But I don’t see the Church of England exploring this any time soon. They will get by as long as they can on current dysfunctionality and handwash.
Thanks Gilo, and thank you for sharing your own experience, wise words I feel. I would be very worried they would use my mental health diagnosis to explain why I was abused as well. Having mental health problems in the church makes abuse understandable.
The biggest frustration is not being able to hold anyone to account. I have an independent review coming up but this seems just to be more stress. Did the NST allot you Ian? Do they have a list of accredited reviewers? I am so worried that I will get someone who will completely stitch me up. Sorry, don’t answer any of that if you don’t want to. We all have to share far too much information about ourselves to get anywhere.
As I was looking through Lambeth Palace staff I saw that there is a Reconciliation Adviser, who deals with conflict resolution, she’s not doing a very good job is she!
Hi Trish,
I was given a choice of 6 reviewers and chose Ian Elliott myself. The others all had various links to diocesan structures – members of diocesan safeguarding advisory boards etc. My experience of the Church from the time I reported in 2014 had been one of total deference to structure and hierarchy, so I instinctively felt it would be better to go for the outsider. Plus it helped that Elliott was considered a ‘world class’ expert, helping shape change not just at institutional level, but national level also.
Several survivors I know were later told by the NST that “no survivor has ever chosen their own reviewer.” It was even implied that I’d lied about this. Well if I lied… both MACSAS and my solicitor were in on the lie because they all knew the facts. Truth is someone in the NST wanted to discredit that idea and discourage anyone from thinking it was possible. They wanted to have greater control of outcome. It took me many months to have that particular piece of dishonesty from the NST addressed by the National Advisor. I’m happy to put this on public record. So if they tell you, you have no choice – the reality is that this is a decision they have made *since* the Elliott Review.
In terms of independence of any reviewer, I think what I can usefully say is this. In many ways it’s the Terms that pre-set agenda rather than the independence or personality of the reviewer. These reviews are always called ‘Lessons learnt’ reviews – and the terms are usually designed to limit any accountability or anything in the way of outcome for the survivor. My advice is ask for the T&C and say you’d like to get some advice on these. And would also like the opportunity to feed into these if you feel they are setting too sepia a tint before the review has even got underway. The Dowling Review in Truro for example was so full of holes it wasn’t true.
I will share with you one other thing which might be helpful. The first time I met Ian Elliott, alongside the then senior case-worker, I remember he told us that although on paper this would most likely be called the Elliott Review – the reality was that we were doing it together. And that he could not do it without my full participation.
In the end your willingness to share as much as you can to the reviewer will provide them with the picture they need to do as good a job as they can. And I believe that reviewers, even those linked to CoE, will want to be seen to have done as thorough a job as possible. Especially now the structure is groaning in full glare of the spotlight.
Slightly off topic, but you’ll see why my tiny mind jumped that way. The parish I was in had a mission audit. Three of the interviews were carried out after the report was written, and the figures for attendance, occasional offices and so on were from a parish profile that was five years old. All figures had dropped a lot since then.
If this was not a public forum Athena (and I was not a wimp) I would share with you just how typical of the church that is judging by what I have been sent!
Thank you so much Gilo, as I prepare for a meeting next week this is very useful and has actually given me the shove I needed to go, up until then I was unsure.
Getting the Terms and Conditions is not only sound advice but critical because when I got them they were they were not just sepia tinted they were opaque but your response has given me ideas to fight my corner a bit.
I am very grateful for the Elliott report, even if for you, the lack of action on it must be deeply distressing, and is incerdibly disrespectful of both you and Ian, but there are things in there that resonate with so many of us and gives us a base to fight from so please don’t ever think it was all a waste of time because even if you don’t get to see or hear the impact it has (the church wouldn’t want you to feel good about anything) it really has been a positive influence in the fight for justice for many survivors, so thank you.
Trish, thinking of you for your meeting next week. Hope you feel you’e made some progress after it.
Thank you Janet, I would ask you to think positive thoughts for me on a certain day but then they would know it was me on here and in all seriousness for the first time last week I felt genuinely scared of their power. So leave it like this and if they confront me, I can follow their example and lie through my teeth!
Trish. If you feel able to share in due course, let us know how the independent review goes. These things tend to be shrouded in mystery and so the rest of us never get to hear whether the process works well. It would be good to know whether the process is truly independent as far as you can tell.
I will do Stepphen if it gets that far but perhaps just as importantly if it doesn’t get that far I will send you some documents so you can see why it hasn’t and the process loses some of it’s mystery! Time a bit of light was shone on some things to do with reviews.
Sorry Stephen I didn’t mean to monopolize your post but the comments have been incredibly helpful (and thanks Leslie, even if you don’t know it, perfectly timed)and I am extremely grateful. I shall go forth with renewed vigour!
All the best, Trish. God go with you!
Nothing very helpful to add, Trish, as I have never supported a case as far as CDM /independent review. Just thinking generally though that you should be able to expect and ask forth at would be considered a fair and independent process in any context, e.g. legal, employment, social care etc. So a reviewer and adjudicator who are demonstrably independent. A written record of the meeting that all parties, especially you, agree to. A clear statement of outcomes and actions from the review. An evidence-based decision.
Hope you have some good supporters and wishing you all the best, hope it goes as well as these things can.
Thank you Jane that is actually very helpful and not only that but so sensible, professional and ethical, now if only the church would take note.
An adjudicator though, you’re talking realms of fantasy there, after all someone has to pay for all this as I am constantly been reminded so I will get someone’s Auntie Maud who once did a 2 day course on safeguarding and be very grateful for it!
Thank you for the good wishes much appreciated.
Tiny tape recorder? But try writing things down. “Hang on, I’ll just note that down”.