by Dr Rachel White
Following representations from an Anglican bishop, I have decided to withdraw the article about lessons learned. I may well return to a consideration of the issues posed by this account, because clearly there are lessons to be learned by me in this case about the issue of power in the church. While I have no reason to doubt the the story revealed by this blog post, Surviving Church cannot withstand legal challenges. I am leaving intact the comments posted for this post as they help to convey the flavour of the original article. Stephen Parsons Editor
I am not Anglican and am a member of a URC church. I read this and feel heartbroken for you both. Power structures that oppress and bully found in the church should not be surprising but they cause devastation and it is only in speaking out about them and praying against them that they will be broken. Will hold you guys in prayer.
I am so sorry this happened to you. Thank you for writing about your experience, it resonates with mine. Your points are spot on.
I was much much further back in my own discernment than James, when a similar character defamation happened to me.
Like James, it happened because I raised questions.
I had gone on a foundational ministry course, with support and sponsorship (minimal cost) from a vicar in my church.
The evening I attended included the history of the church in Africa.
This involved some discussion around Livingstone, whose picture loomed large on the projected slides. But no mention of the tiny photo of 3 dozen or so subjugated African peoples, wearing colonial garb. No names, no country, no history was mentioned . 3 massive missionary society logos, superimposed over that photo, dominated the images and the presentation.
I worked in Ghana for a few years. I visited the slaving forts and the Anglican church that stood in the centre of the horror.
Watching the presentation I thought I might vomit. I thought about my Nigerian godchildren. I thought about empire and domination and racism, and I thought about truth.
So I raised my hand and spoke.
After I spoke out, I was rubbished, slandered, lied about in every quarter of church leadership. Similarly to you, when I eventually saw some of the emails written about me, I was horrified at the BS about me put in writing, including by the rector.
I was invited to ‘pastoral support’ sessions alone in the vicar’s house.
Naive to the machinations of the c of e, I attended.
The questions I faced (literally a month after expressing an interest) included:
Do you drink a lot of alcohol?
Do you take drugs?
Do you hear voices?
Are you sure?
I was completely non-plussed by such negative prurient questioning and wondered what on earth was going on.
I recognised the homophobia inherent in such questions.
The vicar wrote a lot of rubbish about me on a public blog, repeating the lies, and outing me (inaccurately) as a ‘gay woman of intelligence.’
After 8 months of reporting to the rector and archdeacon and getting disinformation, obfuscation, and zero support, I brought a cdm and the vicar was eventually rebuked.
I reported the blog to the police and the past case review since no meaningful action was taken by the church and I was worried that others could be put at risk by these behaviours, particularly as it’s supposed to be an inclusive church
The diocesan man leading the course ‘discerned’ that I wasn’t allowed to continue, after spreading lies about me, saying that I shouted, which I did not.
An apology was sought from the man leading the course. Eventually said he was sorry I FELT excluded after he told me to my face I couldn’t do the course and he also wrote this in emails
Since the diocese excluded me for calling out racist content and failed to act, I reported everything to the Anti Racism Task force.
The content of…
Oops, cut off!
The content of the course is going to change
I continue my own journey of faith, prayer and discernment elsewhere
Far away from the unsafety of the CofE
That is horrifying, I’m so sorry.
I recognise the kind of scenario described by you and Rachel from several incidents in my own experience, in different places and different contexts. There are some good, honest, hardworking, and dedicated people in the C of E. But I’m afraid the pattern of abuse of power, lying, and defamation is also so common as to indicate that abuses are systemic in the Church. It will take humility and a ruthless commitment to honesty and fair play to change this. In the meantime, the C of E should carry a ‘danger’ sign.
Janet, I think you’re right. It’s completely systemic. I understood that I was experiencing spiritual abuse before the blog was published. The only reason it got dealt with even the smallest action possible (rebuke) was because I had the evidence of the screenshot of the blog, and continued to repeat over and over again that action needed taking to protect others. That was why I went to the police and the past case review, as it had become clear the church was going to do nothing, and I was also heavily discouraged from bringing a cdm. I got trapped for months seeking action and support from people completely unwilling to give it.
Early on in the cdm proceedings, the bishop sent me a dossier of support for the blog writing vicar, (I was not informed I could do this) from other clergy, including the ‘inclusive’ rector (who was the only one who asked for his contribution to remain anonymous). Alongside this was pressure for a conciliatory meeting. I said all along I would consider reconciliation AFTER action was taken, and that I was becoming exhausted after a year of reporting to no avail. The blog writing vicar’s emails submitted in the dossier demonstrated such a level of heavy shepherding- infantilising me, withholding information and demonstrating such controlling behaviour and abuse of power that I wrote back to the bishop saying I submit parts of your own dossier back to you as clear evidence of spiritually abusive behaviour.
The bishop only ever acknowledged the breaking of confidentiality, not the spiritual and homophobic abuse, nor the lying, nor the deep failings of any kind of victim support or proper safeguarding protocols.
I am very sorry to read this has happened to you, and to Dr Rachel, but I can’t express how helpful it is to read others’ analyses of what’s happened to them, and recognise that systemic abuse is rife in the C of E, and with such horrific experiences happening in the dioceses of those on the NST it seems the only lesson learned is the C of E will do ANYTHING to protect it’s own image, whilst the disconnect between the rhetoric around supporting victims and the actual lived experience of survivors is an ever growing chasm.
I found out about at least two lies when they found their way back to me! I’ve suspected other stories, people suddenly changing their manner towards me, that sort of thing. But you can’t always be sure. And then you start feeling paranoid! I did regret not formally complaining. No longer!
Thank you for posting this. For the past almost two years my husband has being going through the discernment process for LLM. (He is not eligible for ordination, even though he believes that is his true vocation, because we are in a same-sex marriage). So much of your story resonates with ours, particularly the lack of professional standards – in our case beginning with discrimination on the grounds of marital status which would be inconceivable in any other walk of life. It is bizarre that the process has been so drawn out and even now the conclusion is not clear. I am finding the whole situation quite needlessly distressing. Again it is hard to imagine how there could be such a situation in any healthy comparable organisation. I hope you and your husband are OK and over time recover from this ordeal.
LLM? Is that different from Reader?
Same as a Reader!
John Stansfield makes a good point: ‘… it is hard to imagine how there could be such a situation in any healthy comparable organisation.’
I grew up and was baptised into the Church of England, and deep set in my mind is a presumption of holiness and uprightness in her leadership. And yet time and time again we read stories like Dr White’s.
I’ve now got a “presumption override button”.
If we take our analysis a little further, we must see that matching a growing population of passed-over potential ordinands (for example) there must also be an embedded population of unfairly preferred clergy. Of course some individually may be unconscious of this, but many will know. I suggest these are at the centre of the nefarious work to exclude others who might question them.
This is not uncommon in other walks of life, but instead of being better in the Church, is a lot worse.
From the outside looking in, it seems bizarre at best that exceptional talent gets rejected, but not when you set it against a backdrop of mediocre and unfairly preferred “sitting tenants” protecting their positions.
In other organisations mediocrity brings failure and closure more swiftly. Imagine a coffee shop where the staff can’t make good coffee. It won’t stay long.
But the Church is buffered by staggering wealth, albeit this is diminishing rapidly. She could arrest her decline by employing the best people, but this would expose those maintaining their positions. I wouldn’t hold your breath if you are expecting this to change quickly.
Those are good points. One does wonder why one sticks in there!
I am very grateful for the kind and supportive comments which Rachel and I have received over the past 24 hours.
I have been reflecting on the various responses to Rachel’s piece, and it seems timely that her piece coincides with the launch of the ‘Save the Parish’ campaign. Ultimately, what Rachel and I experienced damages the mission of the Church, regardless of whatever one’s chosen vehicle might be for driving it into the future.
Rachel and I are of the generation of professionals who have been told very clearly that workplace misconduct, bullying, etc., will not be tolerated if we perpetrate it, and nor should we feel that we have to tolerate it if we experience it. Research has suggested that young professional women are the least likely group to be involved in a church. Why should they, if churches tolerate behaviour which would not be tolerated in a workplace?
I think that this dissonance can be felt particularly acutely in a diocese such as ours, where the leadership espouse an especially high-minded view of priesthood. If a clergyperson can almost at will disregard the national guidelines for clergy conduct and their diocesan bishop won’t meaningfully challenge them even when that situation is brought to their attention, when coupled with a high-minded view of priesthood, that is a potentially dangerous situation in which to be for anyone who wishes to raise a concern about clergy conduct.
Ultimately, whether the Church of England is reinvigorated either through saving the parish or through founding 10,000 (or 20,000?) new house churches, the issues noted above are serious flaws for either model. For the former, will people flock to their parish church as long as the Church’s professional standards lag behind what would be expected in the workplace? For the latter, if I was to host a new house church (and I don’t!), I would expect the guests (worshippers?) in my home to behave with the same courtesy and respect that I would expect in my workplace, and that if there was an issue about this, the diocese would support me in resolving it. If I can’t rely on the diocese to support me in upholding the same standards I would expect at work, why would I (or anyone else) want to host a house church?
I find it deeply frustrating that our local diocese proclaims mission as being one of its priorities whilst continuously defending behaviour which would make it deeply unappealing to many of the people it seeks to bring to Christ. All of these issues are innately linked to the mission of the Church, and whether that mission will ultimately be successful. It is deeply unfortunate that the Church seems to view calls for greater professionalism as being inconveniences which somehow hinder its mission, when actually, this all goes together hand-in-hand.
Would we be correct in assuming that you, Stephen, are being subjected to a threat of legal action re this story, and possibly other strongarm tactics? If so, it reflects badly on the bishop in question – and would tend to confirm the truth of their story.
This seems, on the face of it, to be a heavy-handed reaction. Aren’t we supposed to settle our differences out of court?
Stephen Parsons’ decision is both wise and fully justified in the face of threatened legal challenges. An interesting and pedantic point, however. I have simply no idea which bishop, diocese or DDO was involved (obviously I am not asking) and, that being so, no libel was published so far as I or, I guess, the majority of readers here are concerned.
Indeed. Is someone feeling guilty? Or is it a bad case of wanting to take control?
Or both?
Some of our bishops seem to have forgotten that free speech is one of the building blocks of democracy, and something we Brits value very highly. Attempts to shut down comment, online or elsewhere, stick in the gullet and discredit those who are doing the shutting down.
Thank you for all your support and for sharing your own experiences. And to Stephen for hosting this blog in the first place.
I think the absence of the blog says more than I ever could.
I cannot agree with the previous comments. There were some big claims of lying and of a Bishop discouraging the correct use of the CDM. If these could be proven the blog would have stuck. If they could not be proven then the blog should be taken down. It is ridiculous to suggest rhat this blog being taken down immediately proves it to be correct. If anything it’s the opposite, the fact that it was taken down proves the content could be contested. I am so sad to see that it is immediately presumed anyone who fills a senior role is immediately not trust worthy.
It’s always valuable to hear another side. But just consider how it would feel if this kind of thing happened to you. I’ve been lied to, and lied about. I could prove it on balance of probabilities. But who would risk it once something like this had happened to them? Even I don’t assume people are always lying. But I don’t assume they never do, either.
I think what it demonstrates is that the allegations of misuse of power have some credibility. The response was heavy handed, to say the least – especially since (as Roland points out) there was no way of identifying the diocese, the bishop, or the DDO.
I am sure there is much that can be said on this matter, but mature reflection is a sign of integrity and probity. Examination of the problem may not end here.
Much of the story previously appeared in the Church Times yet it is Steven who gets the letter threatening legal action. Given that I ( who am privy to a lot of inside information on Church scandals ) read the piece and wondered to myself which Diocese was involved, I suspect that Stephen had little to worry about, but those who wish him and his work on this blog well, will not judge him badly for being prudent.
I have every confidence that the conclusions he draws from this troubling intervention will be very instructive.
Very useful comment, thank you. And gracefully put which I appreciate.
We have a blog post, which was clearly contested by those it was about, and so far the only presumption is that the Bishops involved have lied, been dishonest, strong-armed, intimidated, have blocked free speech, are guilty, want to take control. That has been difficult to read if I’m honest.
There are other options. Maybe there has been miscommunication somewhere. Maybe the blog was not fully representing all the facts correctly, maybe even it has misrepresented the facts. I would love to read, for example, the text of the Bishop discouraging the use of CDM because that is the most damning claim in the original blog. That is unforgivable.
I don’t know these people. It is not clear who the bishops are. I don’t have a dog in this fight but to immediately, on hearing one side of the story, decide what is true in such certain terms not is impossible. Instead of closing this down I would much rather the Bishop presented her/his case.
Good point.
To the writers of this blog. I have no issue with you at all. I am concerned my previous comments would suggest I do when I don’t. My concern is for truth and for grace on all sides. Including from people like me. I wish you well and am sorry to read the vocations process was not positive and indeed so very difficult for you. I’ll leave my involvement there I think.
It must have been gut-wrenching to have your dreams smashed by the process you described. The intrusive, prurient and clumsy questions could just be ineptitude on behalf of the questioner.
Although I have reported abuse by school clergy on this blog (like others) one of the most distressing things for me in church life has been witnessing incompetence in leadership. Again and again. At times there seems to be a sense of divine right in changing things for the worse. Talented people in your congregation? Ignore them.
But back to the inappropriate sexual questions: isn’t this rather reminiscent of the Sheffield’s diocese Nine o’clock service? The infamous priest Chris Brain was noted for his intrusive questioning of acolytes. He then used this information to manipulate and control them. Perhaps the lessons of that particular disaster weren’t learnt either.
Perhaps I may help the uninitiated to understand why Stephen took down his blog although it was correct when faced with a legal challenge. It is extremely frightening and very worrying to be faced with a legal challenge. This alone is sufficient for people to withdraw but there is further concern about funding legal costs. My personal advice is to withdraw. In my case I have the written admission of guilt by a clergyman and the investigating Bishop’s decision which included a penalty. I also have my Bishop’s reply to my formal complaint about the clergyman telling me I must not complain. Because of criminal proceedings taken against me I now have a copy of a police statement made by the CEO of my diocese. He writes that I made baseless and unfounded allegations against the clergyman. The CEO also charged me for what he called harassing the Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor by email. These emails report breaches of safeguarding actions by two people who chose not to keep to their restrictions and held voluntary church roles. This latter charge was changed to harassing the Board of Finance. I was charged for continuing to complain after Diocesan solicitors sent me cease and desist letters, meaning I could no longer report breaches. The Diocesan Registrar is senior partner of the firm. The letters said that I must stop complaining about the two people who were breaching their restrictions. it appears that reporting breaches even of a written arrangement implemented by the DSA was now to be considered a crime by the Diocese and their solicitors. I initially wrote to the Diocesan Registrar to tell him I believed my Bishop was failing to follow national guidelines because when I made a formal complaint my Bishop wrote back saying I must not complain.That’s how I got the cdm. I have since written to the Trustees to say that their CEO fabricated false charges against me and received another letter from the same firm of solicitors threatening me with further police charges if I write to any Diocesan officer or clergy. Given the way the police behaved when the CEO made claims which I could easily disprove and the way they treated me when I made a complaint of sexual and other harrasment, I have good reason to believe I will be charged even in the teeth of evidence to the contrary. Without legal aid even those who have unimpeachable proof are going to withdraw as will anyone who cannot face the trauma. My advice is to suffer without justice. Hard words but learnt in a hard school.
I worked for 44 years in the law. (Sadly, my latter years were largely concerned with cases involving child abuse, although not in a church context.) I always advised clients that litigation must be a last resort, and never to go near a court if a peaceful resolution was possible. I have negotiated hundreds of settlements in all kinds of cases.
I’m quite clear that what I read in this article could not be held to be a libel, but, as stated above, fully see the sense of withdrawing it. Litigation is both stressful and potentially very costly, and can be even to the ‘winner’. Many is the time I have heard someone demand that “I want my day in court”, and it had to be gently explained that the starting point for the lawyer giving advice to them is to evaluate the strength of the other side’s case, and without objectively and carefully weighing up all possibilities, their ‘day in court’ might end up being disastrous for them.
RW, please see my comment immediately below this one. Do you know the answer?
Thanks
Ray
Apologies for the long delay in replying. According to posts by Martin Sewell and ‘Charles’ you can access it freely from the ‘Church Times’. Maybe by now you have already done so.
Someone has told me today that no assumptions should be made about the identity of the bishop or the diocese solely based on geography. That is all I can say on the matter.
Thank you Mary, I’m so sorry to hear you had this awful experience. James’s mental health has been severely damaged since this whole thing started and suffering without justice looks like the only route now. It makes me angry to think how many good people the Church has damaged, but it is also comforting to know we are not alone.
Thank you Rachel for your kind words. The mental anguish is very damaging as you well understand. As you say, although it is sad to hear of others suffering similar fates there is solidarity also. I hope this is of some help, as well as the best wishes and prayers of readers of this blog. I still find the injustice unbearable. This may be because I was born in a camp for displaced Poles and heard many stories like my parents, my father spending time in a Russian Gulug at sixteen , and my mother picked up off the streets by Nazis at the age of 14 and being sent to a concentration camp. The anguish of injustice and the cover up of abused children and adults by a smug hierarchy who cannot be touched is hard to bear. I feel sure the vocation was given to James for a reason and it is good to hear God calling good people to himself in these troubled times. Take care of yourselves you are precious in the sight of God.
I have only just heard about Rachel White’s original article written for the Church Times and its subsequent fate. If somebody sees this who has access to it, would they be so kind as to advise me where I can read it online? Thank you!
I am a regular commenter (under this same username) on the Archbishop Cranmer blog, which is where people are discussing this sad business now. Would it be licit for me to post a link to the article on the comments thread there? If so, I’d like to do that. I’m not a clergyman and I’m not now resident in the UK, so I enjoy 100 percent immunity against bullying bishops.
Thank you all for your comments.
I think that Rachel told an important story about what we experienced.
The last 36 hours or so, though, has compounded nearly 18 months of deteriorated health which has been triggered by these events. I have thus made a personal decision to draw a line under these events and look to the future.
I think that everyone who tells their story to the Church hopes that it will somehow help to make the Church a better place and that a fair resolution will be reached. However, telling that story feels like a continuous uphill struggle, and one needs to balance telling that story with maintaining one’s wellbeing. I have reached the point where I now want to try to look forwards rather than backwards in my life.
I think that the CofE does need to have an honest conversation about how it handles those discerning for ministry as they are some of the most vulnerable people in our Church as they seek to listen to God’s call for their lives. I reported my concerns out of an optimism about the positive role which the CofE can play in our society. I hope that such a conversation soon takes place, as having aware and confident ordinands is in the interests of the whole Church.
What happened has rested heavily on mind for well over a year now, and has eaten into my very being. It all now rests at the foot of the Cross.
Yes. In the secular world, my uncle recommended to my husband that he gave up on pressing a complaint because of the stress. Being on our side. All the best, James. You were faithful. That matters a lot. The most. And others hearing know they are not alone. That matters a lot, too.
James, I’m sorry that the Church continues to respond to you and your concerns in such a very unhelpful way. She is not good to prophets – but they are honoured in the Kingdom of God.
I wish you a happy and useful future.
This thread would be much easier to read if it were not the case that Parsons is quite happy to censor comments on his site which do not conform to his orthodoxy. To complain of being put on notice that his actions are not subject to the law rings to my ears as inauthentic.
Some comments above conclude that informing Parsons of the law is strong-arming him. Others note that the article did not name any bishop involved and so no one was clearly libeled. This is naive. Dr White’s article in the Church Times notes she works at Newcastle University. A reasonable reader would likely conclude the relevant diocese was Newcastle, and hence (correctly or not) infer a negative impression of officers in that diocese.
While this constitutes a weak case for defamation, it is at least one where, without further clarification, innocent people might see their reputation suffer. As to the probity of the decision to take the article down, I leave Mr Parsons to the advice of those he appears to believe understand the law.
Charles, Rachel’s blog here gave no details about her or James, and the Church Times is behind a paywall. I for one didn’t know which university she is associated with, and I’m sure many readers of this blog didn’t know either – until you told us.
Which just shows that the bishop’s quarrel ought to be with the Church Times instead of Stephen.
I learned of the Church Times article from Martin Sewell’s comment above, and I read the article for free because the Church Times is behind a registration wall, not a pay wall. It is true that I may have made explicit what I learned from Martin and Stephen, but given it took me less than a minute to be able to access the CT article, I doubt my post constitutes anything like a revelation.
There is of course a flip-side to my point: Were Stephen to link to the Church Times article from this page, pointing out that any email address can be given when registering with the Church Times, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to bring a legal claim against him.
It will, of course, be interesting to see if my comment above is itself removed.
Disagreement is rarely removed. Although you should consider triggering those living with the consequences of abuses of power. But unnecessary rudeness may be. Stephen is providing a platform to highlight wrongs that seem to be swept under the carpet. He’s kept some of us sane. I’ve met him, and I’d never met anyone else who could see the church has these problems.
The rules of the blog are clearly laid out on the home page. Even if people disagree here, they are required to do so courteously and, of course, that courtesy must also extend to the host. The fact that your comment has not been removed should be a salutary better understanding of Surviving Church.
Dear Rachel, James,
You both know how grateful I am that you have spoken out about the injustice and concerning behaviour in your case; and to Stephen for continuing to highlight this here. I’m sorry that it’s resulted in a legal challenge, it’s a sad reflection on our church if we cannot resolve things, or learn lessons from mistakes, without resorting to the law.
I’m so sorry that the process of exploring your vocation has been so damaging for you. This should never be the case. I wish you peace James, it’s hard to move on, but like others here I will be thinking of you.
We need to be sensitive to the fact that Stephen is one of very few people who give an informed and substantive insight and analysis into a complex and many faceted problem in the Church, and has the courage to speak. I think it should be recognised that he is able to recognise if a threat or hint of a threat of legal action is sufficiently strong as to warrant the withdrawal of a particular piece, as he has done in this case and we have to leave it up to him,
With regard to Bishops I remember Bishop Key of Truro being accosted by a woman with a grievance against vicar of the church he was visiting. In full view of a large number of people he told her to make an appointment to go and see him in his office and she could make her allegation in his hearing with the vicar present. She never made the appointment . I just wish we had that calibre of Episcopal leadership today without such cases becoming the property (of necessity apparently,) of middle management. We really do live in a church where there are two many chiefs and not enough Indians.
Stephen’s careful management of this blog is evident & like you I fully support him in that.
Your suggestion of repeating a grievance in front of the alleged respondent I completely disagree with though. One of the Bishops I reported to suggested I do that with the priest who raped me. Completely ignoring how unsafe that would be for me, the power dynamic, how it would open me up to reabuse.
Grievances should be heard in safe private spaces, with independent investigation.
The insensitivity. Even in a court of law you would be afforded the protection of being screened from your abuser. Seems a good try at trying to get you to drop your complaint.
It’s a classic power play, designed to intimidate the complainant. Bishops are good at that, as are many church officials. But it isn’t conducive to justice or pastoral care.
Yes, that’s the caring, compassionate, Christian Church of England for you. The one about which the national inquiry said that abusers were more safe than the abused. Perhaps the Church will be good enough to tell us how many times they have to learn a lesson before they actually take it on board?
I did hear of a case where someone made an attempt at a telephone call to a Bishop to give a “reference”. The Bishop said he would not listen to anything that couldn’t be written down! Wild cheering from over here.