![](http://survivingchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/leaven.jpg)
By David Brown
David Brown invites us to consider the dysfunctionality of a culture of conformity and cold authority that we frequently find in our churches. He likens this to ‘Pharisee’ leaven which can infect the institution with a cold lovelessness. By contrast, the leaven that Jesus offers to the Church is one that eschews power, control and attachment to status. It is a Kingdom leaven, an inner transforming loving power which the Church desperately needs. Ed
I started work in 1992 for Keith Sutton, the godly Bishop of Lichfield, as his Lay Assistant, after 34 years in the Navy. Feeling drained on retiring again in 2004, I wanted no further involvement with Anglican bureaucracy with its unjust treatment of some clergy, and unchallenged elements of dysfunctionality. These continued to trouble me; then new thinking shifted my understanding.
Case 1. I was invited back to investigate three separate parish crises, as Bishop’s Commissary. I did so by taking eye-witness evidence of specific events. In each case the Bishop’s Chaplain told me the Staff felt the Vicar was the problem, yet in each parish troubles stemmed from a skilled provocative bully—a long-standing treasurer, a long-standing warden, and a rebellious curate. In the first two cases I visited the clergy couple first to hear their stories—they wept, for no-one from the diocese had ever listened to their stories. In the first case, the Rural Dean and Assistant Rural Dean clearly despised the priest for his churchmanship—he being very high church
Case 2. Other things had astonished me in my time in post. One senior incumbent—revered I think by the Bishop’s Staff—was in the spotlight. His archdeacon told my bishop of two reports he had received of fraudulent use of funds. The Accounts Department had discovered false mileage claims for a four-parish benefice for ten years when he only had charge of three, perhaps amounting to £20,000. The archdeacon also received a parishioner’s complaint that the vicar had hiked up the fees, irregularly, for her marriage-blessing service. The archdeacon started negotiating. If the incumbent, six-months’ short of retirement, handed in a signed retirement form with a £20,000 cheque for the DBF, he would call it a day. This was beyond the archdeacon’s remit. I suggested to my bishop this had to go to the police: it was a crime against members of the public, and the diocese had no capability in criminal investigation. So, it happened. The police forensic accountants got to work and reported evidence of fraud to the level of £160,000. The incumbent went to court, receiving a nine-month custodial sentence. Yet, this was not the end of the revelation. I worked closely with the Diocesan Secretary. Across the next three of so years, four different clergy who had been that priest’s curate, learned of the case through the media, and unbeknown to each other came to report their four stories—two to the Diocesan Secretary and two to me. Each had, in their curacies, reported courageously to their area bishop or archdeacon—across several years—their incumbent ‘trousering’ money from the offering plate, I think habitually. No action was taken against the incumbent.
Only the fourth curate heard anything further. Years later, he asked to see me after I had retired, seeking any guidance I could give—he had been offered the Bishop’s Chaplain post in another diocese. Ordained at about 40, he had been finance-director of a substantial company, exporting world-wide. He told me his story. After reporting the ‘trousering’ incidents, the archdeacon called him back. “Robert”, he said, “you need to learn you’re no longer finance director of XXX, but a curate in the C of E. To help you grasp the difference, I’m moving you to another parish.” It was over 17 miles away. His wife had to find a new job and their three children enter new schools.
Case 3. The priest was from an overseas diocese with an extremist government. His bishop got wind that he was on the state-police hit list and needed to get out of the country. With alacrity, Lambeth and our Government departments got him and his family out. Our diocese gave him a stipendiary post and accommodation. He struggled with the culture change and seems not to have done too well. Several years went by, during which time his wife got into uncontrollable debt that the diocese helped resolve. Sadly, the marriage broke up acrimoniously, so he lost wife and children. There was no sign that anyone was assigned to stand by him. He was scorned by his area bishop and archdeacon, two in each case—his reputation going before him. Eventually one of his two parishes was irregularly taken from him. Next, he was attacked with a machete. Whilst in hospital, he was coerced into resigning. After a while he was forced to leave his vicarage—his health in a parlous condition. All his worldly possessions, documents and family photographs, remained in the garage and, after being given a month to remove them (which he could not do, having no place to put them) they were placed in a skip. Once ousted, he spent some time sofa-surfing, but this came to an end. His health failing, he was on the brink of living on the streets when the diocesan bishop heard some details of the case. The priest, with a parishioner friend, was invited to Bishop’s House to tell his story—twice, for about three hours. It all poured out. +Keith Sutton was moved deeply, saying ‘I’m sorry’ repeatedly through each meeting. He was given a parish appointment in a different episcopal area, his two-year pension gap filled, and his life stabilised over two or three years until he moved to another diocese.
My growing perspective. I could tell many stories. They are not about blame. I have my own share of getting things wrong, and if immersed for years in the same culture as the figures mentioned, I doubt I would have acted much differently. Yet, my past 15 years have been dominated by wondering how such practices—a pervasive dysfunctionality—can exist, unchallenged, in God’s Church. The Foundation for Church Leadership published my booklet “Releasing Bishops for Relationship” in 2008. I suggested how a bishop’s desk duties and unending meeting commitments might be lessened. Although well-received by some, I doubt anything much changed. Yet thoughts still came.
I started to see that ‘culture’ rather than ‘system’, offered the right understanding—the line Jesus took. He never suggested better ways of leading or organising his Jewish faith community. Though sometimes training his disciples forcefully, the gospels astonishingly never tell of him blaming any individual, not even during his bogus trial. I saw how this defined his ministry. We read how, ‘‘when the crowd gathered by the thousands, so they trampled on one another, Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy”. He used the ‘leaven word’ to contrast the two cultures ‘on the counter’. By purveying Kingdom leaven, he equipped his disciples to do the same. It was his core message for all within earshot. In parallel, he excoriated the Leaven of Herod, the scribes and Pharisees—in straight teaching, parable, and confronting its advocates corporately. The gospels are full of it. For me, ‘Leaven’ translates directly as ‘Culture’: that is, how our associations and communities silently press us to conform. It is a whole-community lifestyle thing. Jesus’s ministry may be described in leaven-terms: he proclaimed and evinced the one, and declaimed against the other. One carried God’s love, and the other a chilling lovelessness. Lovelessness is the true opposite of love; hatred being only one part. When Kingdom leaven shapes a community of believers, God’s power is released.
Inherited cultures work unnoticed. We tend to see our own world through a non-cultural lens, noticing words and deeds yet not the power of over-arching culture. Meanwhile we unconsciously put our ill-examined, inherited Church culture on constant display to the world outside. This is surprising for followers of Christ. First-century Judaism believed in God, yet scarcely his power—described sometimes as ‘religious atheism’. Corporately, they swerved away, with power and status appetites, ignoring the needy. The pattern seemingly lingers still.
Rank has just one purpose: to define the responsibility level appropriate to a person’s giftedness. It is not a mark of superiority.
In LEAVEN, I name four strands of worldly culture that have soiled God’s people across the centuries:
- use of controlling power,
- enchantment with historic customs,
- individualism, and
- dogmatism.
Kingdom culture offers a better way. Perhaps, even our Church’s well-intentioned Renewal and Reform project risks leaving the governing spiritual /cultural issues unaddressed. Meanwhile, the lovelessness pandemic presses for a world where love―invariably of God―fades to illegibility, its presence removed, and memory wiped.
I’m going to be uncharitable and suggest that some people are just unpleasant. It’s nothing to do with culture, they’re just totally unsuited to ordained ministry. The systems by which bullies who are high status are protected, and their victims disbelieved are well known to people on this blog.
Thank you, David, the scenarios you describe are all too familiar.
Some years ago, looking at the details of a prospective new parish, I noticed that a) the parish had refunded the previous incumbent £4k p.a. in expenses, and b) it was stated the £4k hadn’t covered his expenses in full. The amount was extraordinarily high so I queried it with the archdeacon. He shrugged it off.
In due course I became the parish’s new incumbent. In my first week I had a meeting with the long-standing parish treasurer. He was clearly uneasy. Eventually he said to me, ‘I hope you’ll follow the same system of expenses your predecessor did.’ He wanted me to claim a block sum of £350 per month without submitting receipts. I refused, saying I would follow my usual practice of submitting receipts and claiming the amount actually spent, as my accountant expected me to do.
I reported the conversation to the rural dean, the archdeacon and the bishop, along with my discovery that the previous vicar had not filed income tax returns. None of them was interested in following this up. In my years in the parish I never had occasion to claim much more than £1k p.a. My predecessor had obviously been trousering some £3k p.a. in bogus expenses claims, with the connivance of the treasurer. There were also some irregularities with fees.
The treasurer became my active enemy from the day of that first meeting, and caused me a good deal of trouble throughout my time there. My superiors declined to back me up. Yet it was the ‘sheep’ who had faithfully been contributing to the collection all those years – as well as Her Majesty’s Government – who had been defrauded, and the archdeacon and bishop took no action.
I get the feeling that there are large numbers of people in the Church of England who could write an essay on culture and even the need for culture change (which is current the “go to” expression in church reports and strategies of all kinds), and very few, in fact, who have any idea what it takes to change a culture, and how they might, personally, contribute to a desired change of culture.
I was sort-of hoping that this culture change might be driven by the (so called) National Safeguarding Team.
By my engagement with them so far has resulted in the same lovelessness and failure.
It seems i am being shunned because i dare to report the failing behaviour of my DSA.
The New Testament suggests to me that culture-change belongs in God’s department. My ‘wisdom’, knowledge, and logic have no power, and are not enough. Culture is not, I think, a systemic thing–surely profoundly spiritual. That seems to have been our Lord’s way of looking at it.
… and revisiting ‘the Lord’s Prayer’, it surely resonates with this understanding.
Our Lord’s solution for bad Leaven was the Leaven of the Kingdom. As individual Christians, I suggest, we can only make small contributions; when a body of believers are demonstrating Love and Unity, the power of heaven can be released in ways beyond imagining.
My book, “LEAVEN: the Hidden Power of Culture in the Church” has, unsurprisingly, yet to reach airport bookstands!
The first step in changing a culture is to recognise that it needs change; the second, to identify what aspects need to change and which are good and can be built on.
As you say, Mark, people are now increasingly recognising the need for change and being open about what they see as wrong. That’s only a start, but at least we’re getting our feet onto the road. Blogs like this and many others are playing an important part in this nascent movement.
If we listen to the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Wisdom, and to the people she is using to point out how we have strayed off the true path, we do indeed have a good chance of changing the culture.
Talking to my “normal” bishop on zoom tomorrow!
I think most of us thought the IICSA report would rapidly accelerate change , but i think instead the Church thinks Phew…we got away with it.
One recommendation which is a no-brainer (the 1 year CDM rule) , and one which makes my situation worse by giving my lying DSA more power.
So the church can carry on re-abusing the weak for the foreseeable future.
Hello Chris. I was sad but not surprised to read your post. I too know of a failing
DSA who continues in post.
Culture is very powerful, often defined in the secular world as “the way we do things here”. It provides a short-cut way of responding to those who do not have the time or inclination to analyse a situation properly. When culture is coupled with power and an undue level of deference accorded to that power, it can be very dangerous. I believe this is what leads to the injustices cited in this article.
The culture of which I have first hand experience in the C of E is that when a parishioner makes a complaint against their parish priest, the senior clergy either ignore it or decide to remove the priest – based entirely on “cultural hunch”, with no objective examination of any evidence. This means that errant priests can remain in post and good priests, who have simply upset a parishioner, are coerced out of post, home, livelihood and vocation. The coercion may involve financial inducement (and a non-disclosure agreement) and/or threat of disciplinary action by senior clerics. It is an abuse of power.
I believe this is why we have heard so many cases of bishops who have failed to respond appropriately to disclosures made to them by laity. Now we are also beginning to hear of victimised clergy being unjustly ousted by senior clergy colluding with malicious lay people. Many of these clergy are suffering from PTSD due to their experiences. In particular, the brokenness of the essential pastoral trust between bishop and priest, leaves them nowhere to turn. This, together with the forced signing of non-disclosure agreements with their diocese, makes it very hard for these abused and isolated priests to speak out. So often it is left to clergy spouses to pick up the pieces and be the voice that speaks out for justice. These voices will only get louder as more are sadly added to their number and they learn they are not alone.
If the C of E is to survive, there needs to be a radical shift in culture at its higher levels.
My prayers go out to these broken hearted priests who follow their genuine Christian beliefs and are not supported by the hierarchy of the church. Says a lot about the culture of the church.
This is an excellent piece by David Brown. However, I am disturbed by the references to fraud in his piece, together with the useful comments made by Whistleblower. There have been a couple of occasions in the past where I have heard references to inflated expenses claims, and it does make me wonder whether the anecdotes provided on this thread are just the tip of the iceberg.
Defrauding attendees is perhaps another form of abuse which it might be worth pursuing in a future blog posting.
I am astonished that, when finance is so tight, that the authorities have been willing to turn a blind eye to frauds of the type mentioned. Whilst I appreciate that the authorities referred to may not have been actively aiding and abetting (within the meaning of the 1861 Act) and whilst I understand that there is often no criminal liability with respect to omissions, I note that omissions can be criminal if the person neglecting to act has a legal obligation to act. In view of this I wonder whether the bishops and archdeacons referred to did have a legal obligation to act. However, I am not sufficiently well-informed about this topic, and there may be others who will have some useful views about it.
Well, I have some views but I am unsure about stating them here, and certainly would not comment specifically about the cases and people mentioned by David Brown. The reaction of people of a certain age would be “misprision of felony”, but felonies have effectively been abolished! So without going into the statutory details, the following are qualified thoughts in response to yours.
Abetting (now broadly “Assisting offenders”) does require a positive act by the abettor. However, there are criminal sanctions for omissions in falsifying accounts and for failing to report a relevant offence for a consideration (there is no suggestion of that happening in the quoted cases). The latter seems somewhat unsatisfactory, and the law is expected to change, particularly in the light of the child abuse reviews.
Internally, the Church would have to take action on any complaint of misconduct made under the CDM.
To clarify one point, we are discussing theft, not fraud which is a different animal. (I have only looked at sections 4 and 5 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and section 17 of the Theft Act 1968. There is doubtless more!)
Oh dear, I do apologise. Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 does appear to fit some of what we have been discussing. Fraud and theft can overlap. I have been guilty of over-simplifying.
Thank you for your two comments. I’m glad to know the difference between theft and fraud.
Re “the Church would have to take action on any complaint of misconduct made under the CDM”: sadly, according to accounts coming my way, this requirement has been mishandled, seemingly routinely, by some bishops. These have presumed guilt until evidence shows innocence. No formal CDM action should ever be taken until the facts of the case are established; yet too often action has been based on untested opinion. Amongst about 11 cases brought to my attention, not one involved systematic gathering of independent witness testimony of deeds and words spoken at specific occasions/events/dates. The tragic cases of destroyed ministries and lives broken by PTSD testify to such professional carelessness. A complaint might, or might not, point to misdemeanor.
Froghole was referring to misconduct by people other than a guilty incumbent, so my reference to the CDM applied to them. Whether or not it works in practice, all clergy from Deacon to Archbishop are susceptible to the CDM jurisdiction. The CDM is currently undergoing revision, so we will have to see what emerges. Issues about it were specifically raised in the the recent IICSA report and the Church has promised to implement the report’s recommendations.
Thank you very much (as ever) for your observations in relation to this, Mr Wateridge. That was most kind.
We got a vaccine, folks!
The CDM process is being reviewed and we are promised it will be replaced with a new procedure, for example with complaints triaged depending on their severity. However, my grave concern is that unless the culture in which it is applied is changed, we will still see the same problems.
Until senior clergy stop acting on ‘hunch’ and properly examine hard facts and evidence, malicious complainants will still be able to bring complaints that jeopardise the ministry of priests not to their personal liking.
Until our bishops recognise that the most important aspect of their role is to be shepherds for their priests – encouraging, protecting, yes and seeking out the lost and strayed – I fear we will see more faithful clergy and their families damaged.
Those serving in the frontline of our military services know that they have the support of their senior officers and when they advance in risky situations they know they are “covered” by those behind them. Just think how much more powerful those at the frontline of Christian ministry could be if they were confident of similar “cover” from their bishops. They could preach the Gospel boldly, they could risk offence (as the Bible warns us to expect) without fear that it could result in a disciplinary charge against them that could take away their home and livelihood.
If bishops moved from their managerial culture and returned to their role of shepherds, it could transform our Church.
Thanks to David for this thought-provoking analysis. It’s encouraging that this is being explored and named. As he says, if we ask Him, God will provide leaven and guide us on how to ‘build the house’. There’s also ample research and discussion of how culture change works in other church and secular domains, available on airport bookshelves, business school reading lists, social media sites offering organisational learning, etc. So anyone who wants to contribute personally to the change can pray for help in this, inform themselves of how it plays out in churches and beyond, and then – actually – act. Unfortunately, some will need in addition to pray for extra courage, protection and perseverance.
An example of powerful culture change in progress in another church context is the work of Concerned Catholics of Canberra and Goulburn: http://www.concernedcatholicscanberra.org