At the time of writing we are in the middle of a profound political crisis.  While I am not going to get involved in the well-rehearsed arguments about Brexit, there are certain aspects of the debate that indirectly touch on the Anglican Church and its present travails.  Michael Sadgrove, a fellow blogger and former Dean of Durham, asked a question on Twitter when it was reported that Boris Johnson was going to remove the whip from the 21 dissenting Conservative MPs.  Michael asked if a leader of an organisation, such as, in his case the Archbishop of Canterbury, could remove a faithful member of the Church for not agreeing with the ideas coming from the leadership.  This rhetorical question was posed to show the absurdity of the situation where disagreements in the Conservative Party are leading to bully-boy tactics in our political life.  I happen to live in the constituency of one of those so affected, Rory Stewart. His status has rapidly changed from being a Conservative leadership contender to someone cast out to become a non-person in a political sense.

In this situation I find myself thinking about this status of being someone’s enemy.  There are clearly many ways of talking about other people as enemies but they have a theme in common.  A person or people who can be described as belonging to the category of enemy are understood in some way to be a threat.  In the situation of war, these threats are real and tangible.  German soldiers might well have invaded our country in the last war and threatened the lives and property of every inhabitant.  We are right to feel that, when individuals or nations threaten to fire nuclear weapons at us, we need to protect ourselves against such dangers.  Enemies come also in many other guises.   Anyone who wants to rob us or hurt us in some way can be said to have made themselves our enemy as long as they continue with their intentions.  Even if we wish to show compassion or Christian love towards them, we still have to protect ourselves with common-sense measures.  Trying to love the stranger does not stop us locking our front doors at night or making sure our children are kept safe.  There is a need to balance the possibility of loving the stranger and being prudent in how we conduct our business with the world at large.

The recent events in Parliament suggest that there are a variety of situations when other people are declared to be enemies which have little to do with threats to anyone’s physical safety.  Ken Clarke and Rory Stewart are not a threat to the Tories.  The attempt to make them enemies of the party has to be something that emerges out of the thinking and imaginations of the mind of the Prime Minister and his closest allies.  It is quite easy with Boris Johnson to believe that certain individuals are hostile when this perception is merely what is going on inside our heads.   It is not difficult to provoke in individuals like ourselves feelings of jealousy and envy so that we think of them as a threat to us.  Another way that we may feel under attack by an enemy is if our self-esteem is in some way challenged.  The narcissist, about whom I have written many times on this blog, is likely very thin-skinned and vulnerable to seeing enmity in those who disagree with him.  Anybody, even bishops or senior politicians, whose sense of self-importance is challenged, is vulnerable to the perception that they are surrounded by threatening enemies.  The only threats that are being made are ones that are perhaps needed – challenges to pomposity and the sense of entitlement.    The enemy here may be simply the person who is telling us the truth.  As T.S. Elliot said, humankind cannot bear much reality.

A serious case of ‘enemy-making’ appears to be taking place in the Church.  Survivors of abuse within the Church frequently complain that there is one thing that causes them more pain than anything else.  That is the experience of being made an enemy by officials and leaders in the Church.  Survivors are those who already suffer the vulnerability created by the original abuse.  It is then a massive blow to find that they then carry the projection of being ‘enemy’ on the part of powerful people in the Church.  The labelling of survivors as enemies and threats to the Church is something not anchored in reality.   It seems only to exist in the minds and imaginations of those who believe they are somehow defending the reputation of the Church from harm.   The irony of these defensive measures against survivors is that they are making the reputation of the Church sink further in the eyes of outsiders. That is what seems to happen time after time.  Instead of encountering welcoming support and professional help from the Church where they were first harmed, survivors are often pushed aside to face broken lives alone.  Many of them feel it is just not worth fighting battles for justice when there are so many powerful people and institutions set against them.  If we were to use military language, we might describe poorly armed clusters of soldiers/survivors coming up against a blitzkrieg of overwhelming power.

My readers will have read the contributions of Gilo over the past two weeks.  I obviously know Gilo a bit though we have only ever spoken on the phone.  For every Gilo I know there are others with similar stories but who simply lack the stamina to stand and fight for justice.  The effort is simply too draining on their energy and their family lives.  This is why Gilo’s testimony is so important. He has survived, along with Matt Ineson and Phil Johnson, the most appalling pressures.  He has refused to be silenced and collude with the Church trying to present itself favourably to the world in this area of safeguarding.  The Church wants to show that it is always motivated by not only the highest standards of ethical behaviour but also the spirit of Christ in its dealings with those it has wronged.  The truth seems to be different.  I have, for example, pointed out the fact that out of the national church budget of several million for safeguarding, nothing goes into a pot marked Care of Survivors.  No specialist in mediation or reconciliation has been appointed to any of these national bodies.  All the energy and the effort seem to be expended on protecting the structures.  The idealism with which some of the new staff on these bodies begin their work seems quickly to be drained out of them.  Every time a new appointment is made, among survivors there is a hope that things may get better.  So far, at any rate, the hopes have been dashed as each fresh face among national safeguarding staff appears inexorably sucked into the quick-sand of institutional indifference and inertia which Gilo has described.   If the Church is ever to recover from the deep wounds of the abuse crisis, it needs to devote considerable resources to escaping the destructive mind-set of treating Gilo and many other victims as enemies of the Church.  They are not.   These survivors do need to be extended the courtesy of being listened to and their offers of help better received.  The Church has a wound which will never heal until it is properly treated.  The treatment for this particular kind of wound requires surgery.  Such surgery will include welcoming the testimony and ideas of the survivor community instead of so often treating them as the enemy.  If this treatment is not applied it will remain a festering sore in the whole Church body for decades to come.