![](http://survivingchurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SCPZMQK4HNZ4OYIG22HYPIIOJI.jpg)
By Janet Fife
Last week our two Archbishops and the lead bishop in safeguarding, Jonathan Gibb, met on Zoom with a group of survivors of church abuse. There were 15 or so survivors and a chaplain, Rosie Harper, who was there to support us. The meeting was organised and chaired by Andrew Graystone, whose idea it was. The episcopal contingent came in casual open-neck shirts and told us to call them, respectively, Justin, Stephen, and Jonathan. I can’t reveal what anyone said, but it was a useful start to what we hope will be a series of conversations.
That discussion has led me to reflect further on what it means for the Church to help survivors. What kind of assistance do we need? I think many of our bishops want to get this right and don’t know how. Perhaps some are genuinely puzzled that survivors aren’t grateful for what is offered, while survivors complain of being asked to rubber-stamp plans over which we haven’t been consulted.
The BBC TV programme Saving Lives at Sea records real-life rescues carried out by the Coastguard and the RNLI. I’ve been thinking of the way they tackle these rescues, and pondering what it could teach the Church.
First, the rescuers know that every ‘shout’ (as a callout is termed) is different. So the first thing they do, while dropping everything to answer the call, is to gain as much information as they can about the situation. Is it a swimmer in difficulty? Walkers stranded at the base of a cliff and cut off by a rising tide? A boat in trouble? If the latter, do they have engine power and emergency equipment? And, in every case: how many people are there? age, condition, experience?
Second, while already on their way to the scene of the emergency they are devising a strategy for tackling the problem. On arrival and throughout the rescue, they are constantly re-assessing the situation, and adjusting their plan if need be.
Third, on arrival at the scene they communicate with the casualties, offering reassurance and gaining more information. They assess the ability of the casualties to assist in their own rescue. If there’s a boat in trouble, for instance, they will rely on its crew’s skill to make fast a rope, steer while being towed, or time the jump from the ailing craft to the lifeboat.
Finally, of course, they get the casualties to a safe harbour, where any further needs can be met or they can go safely on their way.
The RNLI and the Coastguard don’t judge the victims of whatever misfortune has occurred. Over and over we hear them saying: ‘The sea is unpredictable. It can be dangerous. This could happen to any of us.’
The principles we see operating in Saving Lives at Sea are:
- respond immediately
- gain accurate information about the casualties’ situation
- have a clear strategy, but be prepared to adapt it to the circumstances
- maintain good communication with the casualties, within the team, and with base
- don’t blame the victims, but get them to a place where they can carry on with their lives.
The Church of England’s attempts to ‘rescue’ survivors don’t seem to follow this model. The response is painfully slow, an assessment of the individual’s situation inadequate or completely lacking, and communication poor to non-existent. So, metaphorically, a drowning person may be told to swim to the lifeboat, or an experienced skipper’s knowledge of her boat disregarded. No wonder the results aren’t good. The casualties will be no better off – or in the worst cases, dead.
The announcement that the Church of England’s first full-time Director of Safeguarding is leaving after only 18 months in the job has made it more clear than ever that the Church of England’s safeguarding is in dire straits.
I’ve had no dealings with Melissa Caslake myself, but I know she’s held in high regard by survivors, and by Justin Humphreys of the safeguarding charity thirtyone:eight. Ms. Caslake has been reforming the National Safeguarding Team and attempting to bring a more professional approach to the Church’s safeguarding.
According to the Daily Telegraph, which broke the story:
‘A source said: “Half of the leadership of the Church of England knows that it needs to change to survive, but the other half feels that survival depends on preventing change at all costs.”
“Melissa Caslake is a dedicated and competent safeguarding professional. She was brought in to reform the church’s safeguarding practice. She wouldn’t be leaving unless she felt that task had become impossible. Perhaps she has discovered what many victims know from bitter experience – that the church is simply too complex, too defensive, and too self-absorbed to face up to its own cruelty.”’
A statement from survivors who have worked with her said, in part:
‘We note that she came from a Local Authority context and returns to a similar position where she will have clear unambiguous roles, rules, and structures, none of which currently exist within the Church of England in general and Church House in particular. Until those issues are sorted out the position of Director of Safeguarding is virtually impossible to do with integrity, and we don’t blame Melissa for leaving whilst hers is still intact.’
Ms. Caslake is only the most senior of a number of highly skilled and experienced safeguarding personnel who have taken up posts in the Church, only to leave in despair after finding themselves unable to work to good professional standards. The old wineskin can’t take the new wine.
Archbishops Justin and Stephen realise that major change is needed and that’s a good start. But changing our whole model of handling safeguarding and relating to survivors will require not only goodwill and fresh thinking on the part of Justin, Stephen, and Jonathan, but also the willing and creative cooperation of their fellow bishops, Archbishops’ Council, General Synod, and the Church’s civil servants. They – we – need firstly the humility to admit that we have failed God and the people we’re called to serve.
There are far too many people at all levels in the Church, lay and ordained, who have forgotten that our core mission is to embody God’s love for the world. Many of us have become focussed instead on preserving our particular denomination as an institution, with its buildings, traditions, and procedures. Some are focussed on furthering their own tradition or career within the organisation.
It’s natural to love our buildings, traditions, and even our culture. They give us identity and a sense of belonging, and have often been a source of strength and comfort in difficult times. But they mustn’t be allowed to take the place of God, or to become confused with our core mission. That would be like the RNLI forgetting that its purpose is to save lives at sea.
So, how are we to proceed? If people who know about safeguarding and are good at it can’t work within our systems, we must change our systems. This may mean that Church civil servants who can’t or won’t adapt will have to be moved to jobs where they can’t interfere with safeguarding personnel. It may mean we outsource safeguarding to an independent authority. Either way, there will have to be major changes.
I have two other suggestions. The first is that a Church of England Survivors’ Association be set up. This could provide information and news updates and advise survivors on the Church’s Byzantine procedures. It could also relay survivors’ views to the Church and do so without their names appearing. It might be able to provide the Church with the names of survivors with professional expertise who willing to be consulted. The Church is good at de-skilling people and often assumes survivors have nothing to offer. (A cathedral dean once said to me, ‘That kind of person won’t come here.’ He was wrong.) In fact many survivors are over-achievers and leaders in their field. Crucially, such a survivors’ association would be a body they could choose to join, and hopefully would provide a sense of belonging and of agency.
Secondly, the Church needs to place pastoral care at the heart of its ministry. Ordinands should be selected for pastoral aptitude and trained in pastoral skills. This didn’t happen much in my own day, and it’s worse now. Projects and management have come to dominate over pastoral care, and clergy who are pastoral often feel devalued by their superiors. Regular readers of Surviving Church will be well aware of clergy who have behaved in a very unpastoral manner and seriously failed their flocks. All clergy and Readers already in post should take a Mental Health First Aid course. This will at least give them a grounding in the most common mental health crises, how to. Identify what is happening, and where to refer on.
Survivors need our help, and if we don’t work with them we will have failed our calling as a Church.
This piece uses the methodology of Jesus parables. It starts with something people know, engages our empathy and interest, then points us in the right direction, which is congruent with what we know about God and his desire to redeem us.
Great paragle and one of my favourite programmes.
Reading this post as a survivor that was not invited or even knew of this meeting it makes me feel left out, othered. As you say you cannot divulge what was said at the meeting how do the vast majority of survivors, who were left out, know that the survivors who were invited were representative of their concerns. Was the mix of survivors inclusive of all abuses, as you mention mental health training were people who are actually in mental health facilities at this time invited?
This is not meant to be critical of you Janet, I am just trying to get people to think about how being left out feels. Constantly banging on about it has made me unpopular but if things are to radically change survivors must lead by example and say ‘When the church makes proper provision for us all to have a voice we will engage.’ The church needs to follow the example of NHS mental health units and appoint many paid survivor engagement officers, not just 2.
Getting some mental health units to that point took 10 years of survivors refusing to engage at any meaningful level until proper provision was made. Institutions can no longer thrive without survivor engagement. Such meetings as you describe allow the church to say they are engaging when actually the vast majority are just left out.
I think I know what you mean, Trish. I still, after some years, feel that I just need to *talk*. But when it comes to committee meetings, not everyone will be there. It would make the committee unwieldy, and be boring for most. What we need is a proper ministry of pastoral support for all. Which is what you say. And then committees with survivors on them to help draw up policies and methodologies. There really isn’t enough support. People don’t want to listen.
I know how you feel, Trish. I’ve often felt just the same. The C of E’s survivor engagement is haphazard and random. When I hear that survivors have been consulted about this or that, and no one I know was involved, I wonder. I also wonder how survivors are selected to speak to General Synod. It’s very frustrating.
That’s why I’ve suggested a Church of England Survivors’ Association, which survivors and victims could choose to join. It would be much more representative, and it would place the initiative with the survivors. My concept is of a group that would model good practice to the Church. So officers and representatives would be elected, not self-selected or handpicked by the Church.
As for your more immediate concerns, I don’t know enough about the survivors taking part in this meeting to know how representative they were. Most were members of something called the Survivors Reference Group, which I hadn’t heard of up till then. I don’t know how members of that group are selected, or what they do. Which reinforces your point.
Andrew did ask the archbishops not to use this meeting to claim they are engaging with survivors, and to my knowledge they haven’t done so. We did feel it was important to start a conversation, under Chatham House Rules (i.e. you can say the meeting happened, but not what anyone said). I don’t thin anyone at the meeting wants to leave it there. We need to open the conversation up further.
The C of E has just advertised for 2 survivors to join its National Safeguarding Panel. However, they will be the only 2 members of the panel who don’t get reimbursed for being there, and members are required to attend meetings in London. I’ve no idea who makes these decisions, but they need either to be retrained or replaced.
Here is a link to the “job” advert for these 2 unpaid survivor roles:
https://www.indeed.co.uk/m/viewjob?jk=0a04313d5135980c&from=ja&alid=5d911958e842683ec3444d67&tk=1eoha9q7ou9es808&utm_campaign=job_alerts&utm_medium=email&utm_source=jobseeker_emails&rgtk=1eoha9q7ou9es808
Warning: don’t read this if you’re a survivor with high blood pressure
I think any idea like your Church of England Survivor’s Association that models inclusiveness is a good one Janet but can I suggest you pitch it to: nathalie.ballard@churchofengland.org
as she is the survivor engagemnet officer for the NST. Be prepared to pitch it then bang on!
The phrase ‘we don’t represent all survivors’ is becoming meaningless because no one ever asks the question ‘well how many survivors are you claining to represent then?’ The Survivors Reference Group, that you mention, had no more than 15 members when I last asked, was a completely closed group (as in I couldn’t join – I tried), I wasn’t allowed to know who any contactable member was (all correspondence was conducted by a facilitator) or what their terms of refernce were after the NST rejeceted their first application but I do know their aim was to secure funding from the church with a guarantee on the monopoly for survivor representation.
An SRG member will almost certainly get one of the advertised survivor representative jobs because Meg Munn and the NST like the fact that they are rooted in SCIE (who did the audits). To me it feels more like being represented by a secret dining club than a survivors group.
It would be great if Gilo, who delivered the Synod speech on behalf of the SRG and regularly posts on here could let us know all about it and use the comment section for Q’s and A’s because however well intentioned these things are they need to stand up to the scrutiny of those they are claiming to represent.
Such a brilliant piece, Janet, your analogy with the RNLI is spot on and your suggestions are excellent. The thing about pastoral care being at the heart, and inclusive survivor engagement, are the two key messages we were trying to get across at Synod, so wholeheartedly agree.
Trish I hear you about being left out, and I’m sorry you keep experiencing that. You are right there is power in the position of not engaging until we can all engage.
However we have tried that for a few years and found it didn’t work. So now we’re trying to engage enough to get things moving & to be transparent when we do & invite others to join us. Anyone is welcome to join with Survivors Voices & we have a dedicated mailing list for church/faith-based abuse survivors. We consult & inform about everything through that.
We are in the process of working out what we can do to try to get agreement with NST on survivor engagement before Melissa leaves. Anyone who is interested in joining/helping us, or feeding in comments/ideas, please contact me. (You can do so via Survivors Voices website). A survivors association is a brilliant idea.
Thank God for Psalm 107, where the ones all at sea were rescued – verses 23 to 32.
Regarding selection procedures for the ministry, I recall John Wimber once saying that there are three types of people in this world: people-people, who relate well to people, paper-people, who make good administrators, solicitors etc, and project-people, who get things done “but who don’t half leave blood behind them.” He went on to say how surprised he was that people who select ordinands and the like don’t enquire as to which type of person they are interviewing.