A thought occurred to me as I was reflecting on the first part of the Peter Ball programme broadcast on Monday night on BBC2. I was thinking how children learn the difference between right and wrong. It occurred to me that my generation learnt a great deal about the victory of good over evil by watching endless performances of cowboy films. In the 50s before televisions were generally available, crowds of children would pour down to their local cinema on Saturday mornings to watch a special programme for them at the price of sixpence. There would nearly always be at least one Western and so the children would follow some well-worn story line involving ‘goodies’ and ‘baddies’ on horseback shooting it out at the climax. I came to realise how important this oft-repeated story line was for a rudimentary moral education for the children of that period. Knowing that good was going to prevail in every case was a kind of secular ethical conditioning. Each individual was taught to believe in the ultimate victory of goodness. That is not a bad moral principle to live by, even if it does not always work out this way. Britain in the 50s was an optimistic place and it was still possible to believe in such an idea. Schools, churches and fictional cowboys on horseback all backed up the idea that good guys always win in the end.
When I was watching the Peter Ball programme, I had a horrible sense of turn-around in this old comforting moral universe that I had grown up with. Suddenly the roles of good and bad were reversed. The ‘good’ church types, the ones that I had known, in some cases personally, in the Diocese of Gloucester, suddenly appeared weak, deceitful or actually wicked. By contrast those who opposed them, the police, ruthlessly searching for truth, were the good and upright ones. My professional and personal instinctive loyalties lay with the Archbishop and other bishops who were defending a villain. But, by defending and protecting Ball, these same leaders were betraying truth as well as my trust and loyalty towards them. My old moral universe was being undermined. The ‘goodies’ and the ‘baddies’ had somehow swapped sides. My past loyalty to the system was putting me on the wrong side next to the villains.
A large number of people are, like me, going to feel betrayed in watching the programme. Speaking as a retired parish priest I can attest to a traditional fund of goodwill towards the church which has existed in the wider British society until very recently. Clergy, of which I am one, were invited into people’s homes and the other institutions of the parish by people of all faiths or none. We were thought, for the most part, to represent a wholesome influence and could be trusted to have total integrity in every area of life. I belong to perhaps the last generation of parish clergy who genuinely believed in the value of door to door visiting. The practical outcomes for that approach were numerous. An important ‘dividend’, if I can call it such, was the privilege of taking the funerals of many non-church people and helping to make their passings a community event as well as a family occasion. Much has happened in the past twenty years to render this approach to parish work obsolete and unworkable. Safeguarding and health and safety issues have put many blocks to this way of functioning. Chief among these blocks is the greater suspicion that exists in the wider society. I have no direct knowledge of the protocols that exist today in parishes. My impression is that visiting parishioners in their homes has, in many places, become extinct.
The programme about Ball will have increased, for many, the sense that churches and church people are no longer safe or worthy of trust. In the language of Western movies, the church authorities, from Archbishops downwards, are among the ‘baddies’. Even when an individual clergyperson earns the respect of a community or a diocese over a period of time, he/she will still be working for an institution that has lost face and trust at an institutional level. I get the impression that many clergy are feeling the negative results of this institutional suspicion, something that constantly slows or impedes their access to parts of society they want to enter. Instead of being assumed to be automatically trustworthy, clergy have to earn trust and this takes several years to obtain.
Over the past months my blog posts have become increasingly gloomy. The reason for this gloom is that the safeguarding scandals have fundamentally undermined the traditional contract of trust between Church and British society. Something similar is happening in the States. When Trump finally leaves office and the rampant criminality of his administration becomes clear, the uneasy agreement between president and his evangelical base will be seen as enormously damaging to their cause. Evangelicals have ‘married’ corruption and dishonesty in a way that has never happened before in history. Can they ever recover their integrity and respect in the eyes of American society? The Church of England has also sold its integrity to the need to defend itself and its officers when they become corrupted or corrupting. Not only have lies been told, but relevant to this blog, innocent people have been maligned and reputations attacked for the sake of defending the institution. When is the same institution going to begin to act on behalf of the values that it is commissioned to defend? I don’t need here to spell out what those gospel values are. But among them, there are the values of truth, openness, honesty and humility. The path back to integrity is a path that will include honouring and respecting those who have been wronged by a Church that has shown itself more concerned for its reputation than for its integrity.
Tonight (Tuesday) the sad Ball saga is to continue on BBC2. Once again, we will be witnessing a battle between power and integrity. As most of the drama has been rehearsed elsewhere before, we already know the broad plot outlines. Again and again the Church will be seen to chose its power and privilege over its integrity, leaving its reputation damaged and the suffering of the abuse victims rendered more acute. If the Church is ever to find its way back to its gospel origins, it is going to have to engage in metanoia. That will require honesty and realism and such qualities are only found as the consequence of good leadership. Is that leadership to be found? That remains to be seen. At the moment it is not visible.
We are doing the churchasarefuge.com conference to bring hope and healing back to the church. We are raising awareness of the issues of evil with church leaders and Christian organisations, and working towards prevention of abuse and safer cultures. We are working on getting more trauma counsellors trained to help healing. It will be a journey but there is still hope, and with God’s help and light, we will rebuild.
Such important work. Thanks for posting this, Jacqui. Hope that many attend Church as a Refuge.
I found last night’s first half very intense. I’d heard it all before, of course. But I was fascinated to watch how Carey, even though he knew it was going on, managed to convince himself that it wasn’t. He just didn’t “get” that if you have accepted a police caution, you are as guilty as hell. But that made me think, how many ordinary people in the pews get that? Also, the philosophy/theology of offsetting your crimes against good things you have done. That’s a version of salvation by works, and it ain’t so. If you steal someone’s stuff, and then claim that you are good to your children and give regularly to charity, you are still a thief. And if you end up in court, all your good works will not make you “not guilty”. Carey’s theology is very wrong.
Granted – but do you think an outlook (often found on this and other blogs) that majors on (a) witch-hunting, (b) denying forgiveness, (c) denying the likelihood of rehabilitation or transformation, (d) preserving victimhood rather than having the past cleansed, (e) generally being the blamers, a comfortable position, rather than realising that we all have houses to put in order -evinces typical Christian principles and priorities?
It certainly evinces tabloid principles and priorities, as it seems to me.
Christopher, I know I should know better than to engage, but how dare you? How dare you say to the survivors and our supporters who blog and comment here that telling our truth is witch-,hunting? How dare you suggest that we deny forgiveness when we don’t accept it as a cheap ‘fix’ to be forced on victims? How dare you suggest that those of us whose paying the cost of coming forward in order to drive change, are denying transformation? How dare you suggest that seeking truth, acknowledgement, apology, restoration, is preserving victimhood? How dare you suggest that the abuse and abusers whose darkness stains my past can just be cleansed out of it? And how dare you suggest that holding people to account is blaming?!
Sorry Stephen but it needs saying.
Everyone agrees on which things are normally associated with Christianity and Christian theology. Forgiveness: yes. Newness of life: yes. Not hanging onto the past: yes. Truth (as you say): yes. Justice: yes. Justice where we are the judge: no (‘vengeance is Mine…’). Expectation of perpetual victimhood: no. Anything so negative: no. Failure to take responsibility: no. (The latter applies here in only some cases. For example, the Smyth and Fletcher cases involve adults, and Mark Ruston was apparently known to blame the young men who clearly (as his report also makes clear) willingly did what they did with Smyth as well as blaming Smyth himself. For a second example, wherever both sex and young men are involved there will be at least some times when there is willing or even enthusiastic participation on both sides – however, there are also clearly cases under present scrutiny where that is not at all the case. Witch-hunting: no. Not allowing people any redeeming features: no. Putting the worst constructions on their every minor action: no. Restoration (as you say) yes – but who denied this one?
It is a very interesting question why the present preoccupations map so imperfectly onto normal Christian patterns. And a second interesting question why they map so well in some ways onto tabloid constructs. This is not to say that the Christian way of looking at things is right/wrong or that the way normal on such blogs as this is right/wrong (we know the tabloids are wrong of course!), but only that they do not at all map onto one another.
In that context, one cannot speak of others’ bad theology in the context of oneself voicing theology unrecognisable in Christian history.
Good to see your SPCK book on the shelves of our shop the other day.
Well said Jane.
Okay. I’ve read a number of Christopher Shell’s comments here. Now, as a conservative evangelical, I guess (though I dislike the class/sociological stereotype that might imply, as I in no way fit it), I’d like to respond. Not least because I’ve seen a number of people equate Christopher fatuous comments with a conservative evangelical theology.
(a) “witch-hunting” is only a problem if the hunted are not “witches”. (The soubriquet “Witch hunt” is an extremely lazy way of deflecting from bringing attention to genuine problems.)
(b) “denying forgiveness” Forgiveness is to be extended to those who repent. Did Peter Ball repent? John Smyth? Has Jonathan Fletcher? The answer is no. This is obvious to all but the most craven minds.
(c) “denying the likelihood of rehabilitation or transformation.” There is no *likelihood*. Why one earth would you think there is? Of course there’s the possibility, by God’s grace. But for anyone sane to believe that repentance and transformation has occurred, it would require lengthy and obvious evidence of a transformed life, and a deep and sustained contrition.
(d) This is just clueless, as far as the experiences of victims of deep trauma are concerned. The past can be cleansed; this does not mean that real wounds and trauma live on. Perhaps until the grave and the resurrection to new life.
(e). Yeah, those dreadful Jews. They had houses to put in order. Can’t be too mean to the Nazis. Anyone with any (I repeat any—I have a lot) experience of marital counselling, counselling in cases of abuse of various kinds (of which I have some) would know that sometimes there really are basically innocent victims, sinned against but not obviously sinning. On the other hand, of course, perhaps this would have been the best answer to Jeremiah on the part of Israel, or St Paul on the part of the Galatians or Corinthians: “Shut up. Stop blaming. We all have houses to put in order.”
Sheesh.
Nice to meet you, Matthew!
My position is close to yours on most of this, Matthew. My (a)-(e) represent rather absolute positions that one finds, of which I am critical because they are less nuanced and less well thought out than yours.
(a) Of course witch-hunting is itself lazy, an example of the all-too-easy madness of crowds, mob mentality. Plus I can sometimes in my assessments swing the pendulum from 100% against to 85 or 55% against only to be tarred with the brush of thinking that perpetrators are paragons of virtue.
(b) By ‘denying forgiveness’ I meant not what you say but instead denying forgiveness as the expected and hoped-for endgame of the whole thing (which has historically and accurately been the Christian perspective), rather than eternal unresolved resentment which is the reverse of healing, and (being negative by nature) has negative ramifications in all directions. On the power of forgiveness I need not speak and cannot possibly exaggerate, being in Christian company.
(c) By ‘likelihood’ I did not mean that rehabilitation is necessarily more likely than not to take place, but rather that people stereotyped the witchhunted as extremely unlikely to change. Let’s suppose for a moment that this is indeed correct, and indeed research often supports it. Well then, do you suppose people are *more* likely to change for the better if they are damned with this diagnosis-of-despair or *less* likely? So our writing people off contributes to the problem, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
(d) Agreed.
(e) Here I am just drawing attention to ‘judge not lest you be judged’ in the context of people having drawn attention to the nature of our present culture as e.g. a victim-culture, a culture where rights are preferred to responsibilities, a culture of have your cake and eat it (retain victim status and have the satisfaction of condemning others even those whom you know little about, and endlessly pick over details in the manner of the tabloids, but don’t get on with the things the church does as its central activities: rather, see safeguarding *as* the church’s central activity).
That’s my allotted 3 comments on this one.
Christopher, thank you for taking the time to reply. I recognise you don’t have any “right of reply” to this, given the three post rule. But given your response, I’m more than a little baffled why you wrote as you did in the first place. May I gently suggest you give far more thought to the content and potential implications of what you write in future?
(As mentioned, it was not understood what the content was in the first place – e.g. you misunderstood what I meant by ‘denying forgiveness’ and also by ‘likelihood’: see above.)
Shell – I’m wondering if you really understand what the purpose of this blog is. When Stephen, with the support of Chris Pitts, began it a few years ago, it was in response to the plight of the many victims and survivors of abuse within a church setting. The overriding need was for a place of safety where they could download, share and know that they were being heard. Some of the contributors are not survivors, but are people who are anxious to show their support and are greatly valued. We have seen online friendships forged on this blog. Why? I come back to this word ‘safety’. It is because the members of this blog have felt safe. Safe enough to express their deepest hurts.
So where do you fit into this? You belittle other people’s experiences and their interpretations and use your posts as an excuse to show off your erudition. I suspect that many who used to feel safe no longer do so and have drifted away.
Do you perhaps, like an internet troll, enjoy causing offence and get fired up by the responses to your posts?
I think we all admire Jane for the way she stood up to you. That can’t have been easy.
Perhaps the time has come now for your posts to be ignored.
Let’s try and rekindle that sense of safety.
Thank you, Frances. Very well said.
Indeed.
Also agreed.
Thank you Frances.
Thank you Matthew.
Thank you, Matthew. As a victim of spiritual abuse, I am very grateful for your explaining this all so very clearly.
Many thanks for this very astute piece. The Church, as much – but perhaps more – than most institutions depends, like the Wizard of Oz, on ‘front’. Once that front is penetrated, or compromised, the loss of faith and respect is all the greater. Think of the fate of the British Empire after the fall of Singapore; once the mystique and reputation are gone, the ability to exert any authority vanishes almost in an instant.
The fall of Ball, what with his talismanic reputation in certain quarters of the Church, is the clerical counterpart of Savile (though the crimes of the latter were, arguably, on a different scale; which is not to diminish the suffering endured by the victims of the former); indeed, the impact of Ball is arguably greater than that of Savile upon the BBC, since the BBC has not necessarily held itself out as operating on as high a plane as the Church. A large section of the broadcast media was tainted by association with Savile; much of clerical profession has been tainted by association with Ball. It is not merely Ball’s proclivities that are deemed reprehensible, but the cover-up and the stench of etiolated snobbery which Ball deployed in his manipulation of the credulous great and good.
Public opinion can turn suddenly. I was recently re-reading chapter 1 of G. W. Barnard’s ‘The Late Medieval Church’ (2012) on the Hunne case. Richard Hunne was a London tailor who, in 1511, engaged in an unseemly dispute with the Church authorities over an unpaid mortuary fee; he found himself accused of heresy, and was later found hanging in a prison attached to St Paul’s (his corpse was burnt following a heresy trial in any event). Londoners were incensed by his treatment, and this tragedy is often marked as a decisive moment when the wider population became more insistently anti-clerical than before. Barnard (and other scholars before him) have suggested that this affair opened the path to the Reformation and disendowment. Another example might be that of the late Eamon Casey in Ireland, where the 1992 revelations about his private life ignited a fire that tore through the reputation of the RC Church in that country.
You write of the ‘dividends’ of visiting. It was once thought de rigeur, but has been considered false in many theological colleges since the 1960s; I think you are right that it is almost extinct, but in some of the very few flourishing parishes I have encountered it is still practised. When I once asked a priest in a successful multi-parish benefice to account for the absence of visiting in neighbouring benefices, he suggested that the real reason was laziness, and that the supposed burden of administration was a convenient excuse for dropping the hard graft of visiting. Well, there may be other reasons (and in some areas it might not be appropriate), but his remarks might have contained a grain of truth. Ultimately, prestige has to be earned, and the Church gets out of the community what it puts in.
I have to disagree somewhat. At one time it was assumed that the vicar would visit. Nowadays, if you just turned up, people would think it was weird. Visiting those who come to church is a different matter.
Can I please copy this and reblog it? With full acknowledgement of course
Of course. It is not protected.
Having got that off my chest, a calmer response to your wise words, Stephen. I haven’t had the courage to watch the programme yet. It’s too raw at the moment. My heart goes out to all those who watched it from the pain of their own experience.
What strikes me is here we are, we’re all mourning. Those of us who are survivors are mourning what wad taken from us by the abuse,and often again by the response when we tried to tell. Those of us who believed in a church that was fundamentally good and trustworthy and of value to the community are mourning the loss of that dream, when the reality has been revealed to often be so different.
And yet we are still here. We haven’t walked away. We’re still discussing not just God but church, what it means to be God’s heart and hands in our neighbourhoods. We’re absolutely working for reform.
Perhaps one of the important things in all this is recognising leadership doesn’t have to be the hierarchy. Here is true leadership. People can be leaders, look at Greta Thunberg. Perhaps we don’t need the old leaders to be visible. Perhaps we just need them to step aside?
Thank you for both of your comments on this post, Jane.
I have no dog in this discussion as, thankfully, I have not been abused. But, as a Baptist and having watched the programmes, I would like to ask a couple of questions. First, it’s clear that Peter Ball was supported in high places by people whose friendship he had cultivated over the years. Would you say that this makes a cover-up more likely in the CofE than in other denominations that are less thralled to the “corridors of power” or are less hierarchical and more congregational or presbyterian in structure? The programme would seem to imply that, though of course abusers can function in many contexts.
Second, I was struck by the parallels between Peter Ball and the Birmingham Pentecostal pastor whose conviction was announced yesterday. In both cases they set themselves up as spiritual mentors purveying the grace of God who had to be obeyed without question as to do so would be sinful. One senses similar situations in the Smyth case too. How can a Christian institution curtail and control the power of a dominant charismatic leader who sets themself up as God’s unique mediator to vulnerable people and (let’s be honest) is also regarded as “successful” in the wider Church because they have a high media profile and/or are getting bums on pews?
I’m sure these matters have been discussed many times but I’m new to this blog!
Andrew, I guess you answer your first question yourself by reference to the Pentecostal pastor. No denomination is immune from corruption or abuse scandals, particularly in the United States e.g. Willow Creek. But we seem to be rapidly catching on here.
I suspect the risk is directly proportional to the size/wealth of the organisation in question.
There is also a reciprocal risk in ‘Establishment’ figures not aligning (cosy-ing up) with a wealthy/successful religious body: not to do so risks losing votes, for example. Again c.f. USA.
We, the people, clamour for a king (1 Samuel). We get leaders we want but are not always good for us. We need to be aware of this in our selves.
As a congregation we can begin to protect ourselves against manipulative charismatic individuals by insisting on elected eldership having right of veto on key decisions. We should also insist on external scrutiny of, for example, safeguarding issues, enshrine whistle-blower rights in our constitution, and support mandatory reporting of breaches.
Would we be proud to invite a secular investigator into our midst to examine and report back on the quality and integrity of our church?
My impression, fwiw, is that the caste system makes at least bullying, easier. We are chimpanzees, basically. So treating the high caste people with undue respect seems natural. Gathered churches, and especially closed orders, function differently. People come perhaps for the security of set beliefs, but when the pastor becomes the sole arbiter of what is taught, voila! a different way of providing fruitful ground for abuse! The CofE really is a broad church. People wander in, perhaps because they are recently bereaved, in a way they wouldn’t to the local Baptists. And nice to meet you, Andrew.
Thank you!
Please come to hear Dr Diane Langberg. We need to raise awareness as abuse of power, control and deception can happen in any church, of any size, of any denomination. Tickets at churchasarefuge.com If anyone can’t afford a ticket, please let me know via the email on the website.
The sad thing is that such issues are worldwide. Churches all too often build narcissistic, self-reinforcing structures in which evil allegedly doesn’t exist for the very reason that it is happening in a church. And it is that very construct that is so seductive to narcissists, who in turn further cement the self-serving, circular reasoning.
Thanks Stephen for your blog about the downfall of Peter Ball. Being let down by the hierarchy of the church and society should not lead to the presumption that good can be overcome by evil. The heart of personal faith gives the assurance that good will always overcome. If we don’t believe this then Peter Ball has won.
Peter Ball’s behaviour was sadly familiar to anyone who has listened to survivor’s of abuse. It was the behaviour of George Carey and the lack of accountability for his actions that I found utterly shocking. Why was he not held to account for perverting the course of justice? He’s still in the House of Lord’s for crying out loud. He has a say in formulating the laws of this land when he deliberately withheld evidence which could have helped the police to obtain a conviction! Protection of the establishment continues.
The words of two survivors were very telling, Rev. Graham Sawyer, would not work in the Church of England and Phil Johnson said that he is on the national safeguarding panel but thinks there are still a lot of people who wish he would go away. I found that incredibly sad and still rather damning of the C of E today.
Thank you Matthew and John. I really shouldn’t let him get to me. But he does.
Christopher I will do you the courtesy of assuming that you don’t intend to wound survivors like me. But your words do.
Please re-read your, my and Matthew’s post and imagine that like me, you were groomed and raped, as a young adult, by 2 priests that you looked up to and whose teaching and authority you respected. Imagine that 18 years ago you reported that to 2 bishops, writing letter after letter over 9 months and they did nothing and verbally attacked you for not just forgiving and forgetting when your abuser had threatened you and accused you of lying. Imagine that you are still suffering from rape nightmares, anxiety and other trauma related issues. Imagine that church no longer feels a safe place for you. Imagine that you long for the freedom of reconciliation and forgiveness, but as your abusers haven’t admitted it happened, never mind apologised, you cannot see that ever happening. Imagine the weight of the sin that was done to you makes you feel so ashamed that you have frequently self-harmed and wanted to kill yourself.
Read your words through that lense. Then please ask yourself if, as well as truth, because I am sure you want to be truthful, you can find the other Christian values of grace, mercy and compassion. Because I do have compassion for my abusers, Christopher, which is why I didn’t go to the police. But I haven’t met much compassion from the church, until very recently. And it hurts, Christopher, and your words hurt. I am not hanging on to a victim status, I am trying to hold on to the courage to bring the light of truth. But it’s indescribably painful and I am crying as I write this. Please just pause and think about how you can be more sensitive in your consideration and expression of your views about these matters. Please try to see from a survivors point of view.
You’ve been incredibly courageous Jane. Thank you for the inspiration you give and your humanity.
Jane, I am so, so sorry that you were treated in this way, and by the church. It makes me cry just to read it. I can’t imagine how hard it must have been to be a survivor of this. I will pray that the Lord somehow protects you from these harmful verbal assaults. Thank you so much for your courage. God bless.
Jane, the way you’ve been treated is grotesque, and deeply evil. God hates what’s been done to you. It makes me very angry to read what you’ve had to experience at the hands of those who should have respected and protected you. I’m so very sorry you’ve had to go through this. Thank you for your courage in talking about it. And I echo Tiger Tea’s prayer for God’s protection and comfort.
Jane – I’m so sorry that your hurt was compounded by church’s response. We can only hope and pray that the church learns from its past mistakes.
Christianity today magazine had an article last year about the problem of seeking forgiveness and reconciliation too quickly. I wondered what others thought of the article?
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december/when-restoration-hurts-christian-counseling-abuse.html
It reminds me of Jesus words to the religious leaders of his day about laying burdens on people and not lifting a finger to help. I spent my early teens wracked with guilt because I could not forgive an abusive man who showed no repentance. Shouldn’t more be said about what true repentance by an abuser would look like. Surely it would involve confessing fully to their sin and accepting the full consequences of the law, not only admitting guilt when a lawyer tells them the evidence is too strong and they would be better to plead guilty! It would involve reparation to the person they have wronged if possible, but accepting that person might never want to see them again, so it’s their responsibility to keep away. They would be grateful for the safeguarding contract that helps them to avoid being tempted to sin again, not constantly pushing the boundaries. Surely anything less is cheap grace.
Horrifying, in a word.
I know I have had my allotted 3 but hopefully it’s ok to just say thank you all very much for your support and kind words. The dialogue and compassion in this space means a lot.
I’d like to pass on a virtual hug, Jane. I know a real one wouldn’t be acceptable. And thank you for your courage.
For what it’s worth, I think it would be in Lord Carey’s own best interests to give up his PTO, resign from the House of Lords, and make amends to survivors of Peter Ball’s abuse and the Church’s re-abuse. I hope he will do so. Perhaps Bp. Jeremy Walsh would also be well advised to give up his PTO (Bps. John Yates and Eric Kemp are no longer with us.).
However, I’m concerned that in rushing to condemn those who so badly mishandled the Peter Ball case we could easily miss one of the most important lessons to be learnt from it – that any of us can be taken in by an expert spiritual con artist and manipulator. Any of us can find that someone we trust, respect, or even love is not who we thought them to be. That is a very frightening thought. I suspect that the deep need not to recognise it is behind some at least of the cries for Lord Carey et al to be punished. If they can be fooled, so can we. It’s more comforting to think they acted deliberately and with malign purpose.
If Lord Carey, Prince Charles, and several thousand very astute and distinguished people could be genuinely deceived by Peter Ball, how sure can any of us be that people we trust are trustworthy? And the evidence is that to some extent at least they were deceived. Even the police officers going to arrest Ball, aware of the extent of his crimes and manipulative behaviour, were persuaded to de-arrest him – as the programme showed.
I consider myself to be a pretty good judge of character but I have been taken in several times. Most notably by Gordon Rideout, who was my mentor and friend for some 30 years; and by the Rev. Geoff Howard, my colleague and friend who was eventually outed by the News of the World and became known as the Dirty Dean of Salford. There have been others, such as the PCC member who fooled both me and a psychotherapist colleague into thinking he was genuine before he ran off with some of the church’s money.
This is why I favour a Truth and Reconciliation approach. The truth needs to be told; lessons learned; crimes punished; failures of duty and responsibility for those failures acknowledged; and above all survivors need to receive genuine apologies, whatever healing therapies they need, and compensation. I think it’s only in this way that we will really change the Church’s culture.
Good points, Janet.
Many thanks for this: this seems entirely right. Also, I have not kept up with this thread until this morning, and have been much moved and pained by some of the revelations that have been contributed. I have to mention that I didn’t realise that this blog had its primary purpose as a ‘safe space’ (apologies for that, as I ought to have read the welcome page properly); that being so, my admiration for the work that Mr Parsons does is all the greater.
You mention Eric Kemp, albeit briefly. Like many readers of this blog, I read all of the IICSA transcripts as they were fed out last year. It had long seemed to me that the chief architect of the Ball disaster, aside from Ball himself, was Kemp. However, absent some relatively brief exegesis of his maladministration, Ms Scorer and other members of the tribunal paid relatively little attention to Kemp. Instead, a lot of attention was directed at characters like Benn, who came on the scene comparatively late in the day.
Of course, this was understandable, since Kemp was no longer around, but I do think that much of the history – from the 1970s and 1980s – has still to be unearthed, and a lot of the trouble seems (to me) to have had its origin in the way in which Kemp ran, or didn’t run, the diocese. Kemp, I feel, made Ball possible more than anyone else. If this is indeed the case, then was all the more perverse, since Kemp (who should have remained a college fellow, and may have been as poor a dean of Worcester as he was a bishop of Chichester) was the Church’s leading canonist following the death of Robert Mortimer.
Several years ago I made some comments about Kemp on TA, and got a rather sharp dressing down, because his widow (Kenneth Kirk’s daughter) was still alive; I think the phrase ‘thoughtless negligence’ was used. However, I wondered whether that phrase might have been apt summary of Kemp’s administration.
My headteacher was a squash partner of Ball in the 1980s, so I was long aware of the latter’s ‘star’ status (perhaps in deliberate contradistinction to the dour Kemp) and he came to my school in Surrey a couple of times. Ball was also much admired in Litlington parish, where he served as incumbent whilst bishop of Lewes. At one parish near Battle I met the mother of an adolescent who had acted as Ball’s chauffeur, and she mentioned there had never been any hint of impropriety. Indeed, when I did my pilgrimage around Sussex (2009-13) there seemed to be a great deal of regret about Ball’s legal difficulties, perhaps because he was recognised as far more personable than Benn, who appeared to have little in the way of ‘soft skills’ (though Ball had very much gone to ground by the time I got to Aller, near Langport). Ball had, evidently, gulled a great many people. You are definitely right: any of us can be taken in, no matter how ‘perceptive’ we delude ourselves into thinking we may be.
Well done to Jane in ‘standing up’, including to those thoughtless (well, I may be being generous there) theological ‘pushbacks’ on you. Feeling for you.
‘The church’ is not coming out of this at all well- can we be surprised if ‘bums on seats’ leave/ fail to come ever/ rightly ‘bad mouth’ that hypocritical and worse church- i.e ‘us’.
I am struggling to understand or forgive George Carey- though I can understand the sycophancy attached to patronage and the Establishment. It feels more like East Enders supporting ‘family’ come what may. If only it were only a Soap opera. I am also failing to understand the Bishop of Oxford granting him PtO.
I see odd official-ish ‘responses’ published. I am waiting to see anything that looks like contrition- anything that measures up to the damage done so coldly to survivors and to our institution, the body of Christ.
What, if any of this, will be on the Agenda at General Synod? A letter from Laodecia?
Really moved by your history Jane and thanks for giving a mention to self harm, often very much overlooked as a legacy of abuse. Going to A and E with serious self harm can be another abuse all in itself so I am really grateful when it gets a mention.
From what little I know of you your abusers have not triumphed, you have, because out of all that terrible pain you have given back to society and survivors something wholesome and good. Your abusers can never do that because they are living a lie.
As for Dr. Shell’s comments it makes me wonder just who’s ‘voice for justice’ he is championing.