A few years ago, I was giving a paper on Joan of Arc. The details of that talk are not important here, except for one point I made. Joan’s command of an army to fight the English around the city of Orleans in the early 1430s was an exceptional event. Socially she was of fairly humble stock, certainly not officer class. Her authority to command soldiers had to be given to her and supported by someone who actually had the legal/feudal power to occupy a leadership role. Those who had this were always the ones with noble or aristocratic connections. They occupied places within the fixed hierarchy which was built into the whole of mediaeval society. Allowing a person of humble roots to take command of soldiers was highly unusual and it is this event which conveys to us something of the remarkable impact that Joan made on her contemporaries and the soldiers she commanded.
The word hierarchy is a Greek word. Some of the thinking about the idea of rank and hierarchy in both church and state can be linked back to two 5th century Greek works attributed to an anonymous writer known to us as the Pseudo-Dionysius. This writer, deeply affected by Platonic ideas, saw the world as a fixed order emanating from God. At the top were various orders of angels. Lower down, where these orders became visible in our world, we see the ranks of divinely imbued ecclesiastical orders of bishops. priests, deacons and monks. By extension, later writers saw kingship as belonging to this same priestly hierarchy. Elements of this thinking, that make the coronation rite into a kind of episcopal consecration, can still be found in our contemporary coronation liturgies. Such ideas also fed into feudal notions which saw the ranks of society as being irrevocably fixed, with kings, bishops and feudal lords all occupying exalted places within a hierarchy of being. Echoes of this thinking can also be found in the children’s hymn from Victorian times. The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate…
While the power of the nobility in British society is much diminished, the House of Lords still reminds us that hierarchical ideas are embedded in our way of life. There is still some sense that the King or Queen is at the top of a divinely ordered system of privilege and power. The Church also retains some of its mediaeval structures with regard to the exercise of its authority. Within the Church in Britain, the main administrative unit is of course the individual diocese. In charge of each of these units is the local bishop. Ecclesiastically the bishop has some of what we can call feudal power at his/her disposal. The bishop is the place of last appeal when there are disputes or disciplinary matters to be resolved within the diocese. Naturally, there are checks and balances in the system, but recently, we have been witnessing how difficult it is to hold bishops to account when things go wrong with the episcopal role as a dispenser of justice. There are two ongoing cases of bishops in Britain who have been accused of exercising their authority in an arbitrary and coercive manner. My purpose here is not to review the rights and wrongs of these cases, but to point out how extraordinarily difficult and damaging for a hierarchical system it is when the person at the top of a pyramid structure of power stands accused of malfeasance. It is as though, during a court case, when an accused is about to be condemned for a terrible crime, the judge is suddenly revealed to be himself also guilty of crimes. For the justice/hierarchical system to work for the many, we need the judge or the bishop to be morally beyond reproach. The whole system takes its stability from the probity of those who oversee its functioning and have been appointed for this purpose. Justice and fairness in Church and society is dependent on our being always able to trust the hierarchs in charge. Any failure on their part is not about individual lapses of ethics or competence; it is about a crack in the whole system and the trust that people expect to have in it. When the system experiences any such fracture, the cost of repairing it is very high indeed.
Historically speaking, our trust and reliance on bishops and others with judiciary responsibilities has not been misplaced for the most part (at least in modern times). The broad tradition of absolute probity has had the result that the system has not needed to develop protocols to be able to call a diocesan bishop to account when they appear to abuse their power in some way. This is why it is so important that, before senior appointments are made, a proper and thorough scrutiny of past performance by a candidate is undertaken. Theoretically under the rules of CDM, a bishop in the Church of England can be reported to the Archbishop of the Province when authority is abused. In practice, as we have seen in the case of the Bishop of Winchester, there is little precedent to call on to help resolve such a scenario. Bishops are supposed to be beyond even the possibility of moral or institutional failure.
This blog post does not claim to have any privileged information about the situation in Winchester or Aberdeen, but a single word seems to describe the reported behaviour of each hierarch -bullying. It is not important for us to determine the degree and extent of guilt in each case, but we can safely say that any accusation against a diocesan bishop is extremely serious for the reasons we have mentioned above. We are not just talking about individual reputations at stake. We are referring to people being able to trust the structure and the justice system in the Church as reliable and trustworthy. Most people would never choose to work for an institution that that has allowed injustices and bullying to take place at the highest level. The hundreds who work for the diocese of Winchester are seriously affected by the events there. At the very least we can speak of an instability right across the whole diocese. The effect on morale of everyone at any level in the diocese is also likely to be severe. The person at the top embodies the entire structure in him/herself and every piece of work in the diocese is done to some extent in the name of its chief officer. Fewer people are involved in the Scottish situation, but the effect of the destabilising of the structure of the Diocese of Aberdeen and the College of Bishops is likely to be felt right across the entire Scottish Episcopal Church.
Every Christian can be thought to operate at two levels. They each have a personal faith and relationship with God. At another level they expect to have their faith reinforced and nurtured by the institutions they belong to, their local congregation and other networks they identify with. In recent days we have also been reading about some Christian networks in England which have been reported to be failing in terms of integrity and honesty. Andrew Graystone’s book is not primarily about the behaviour of a single individual, however great the suffering Smyth caused to many people. It is a story of certain institutions/mini-hierarchies, here those aligned to the conservative evangelical faction of the Church of England, which chose to bury the truth about this evil for 40 years. At each stage we see culpability in many of those at the top of the structures failing the cause of transparency and justice. Those at the top of the Iwerne/Titus/REFORM/SU hierarchies have a particular case to answer. They had the power to redeem or mitigate the situation, but they chose rather to continue the omerta and cover-up, simultaneously damaging the whole con evo edifice in Britain. Graystone’s narrative is likely to point out the difficulty of trusting the word of leaders when these have failed for so long and so comprehensively in regard to their constituency.
Go up and down the streets of Jerusalem, look around and consider, search through her squares. If you can find but one person who deals honestly and seeks the truth, I will forgive this city. Those who want to believe in the Anglican Church, whether in its local or national manifestations, will no doubt know some in leadership who deal honestly and seek the truth. The numbers, nevertheless, are not as large as they should be. As I prepare to read Bleeding for Jesus sometime this week, I shall be looking for any individual among the leaders in that whole sorry tale who fulfils the role of honest truth-broker. I suspect that I will have considerable difficulty in nominating anyone for this role. Jeremiah certainly seems to have failed in his search.
The fate of any institution where the leadership is weak or worse still, corrupt, is bleak. There may be many honest good individuals working for and within such a structure. However, whenever the hard work of the just and honourable foot-soldiers finds no mirror among the leaders, the possibility of maintaining good morale overall is likely to be weakened. Word coming out of the London diocese at present speaks of seriously damaged morale in the aftermath of dysfunctional leadership over Fr Griffin’s case. Institutions find it hard to flourish or survive when honest open leadership is absent.
Today’s blog is gloomy, but this perhaps is a reflection of my mood as I scan the church news at present. I have been struck forcibly by the likely difficulties in filling the cluster of episcopal vacancies that have come on stream recently. I applaud those who allow their names to go forward just as I salute any who are taking on the immensely difficult task of serving on General Synod for the next few years. Let us all hope and pray that the Church may find the leadership and integrity it desperately needs throughout the structure, and that this may help to save the whole weakened edifice. This has been so sorely weakened by problems at the top of the hierarchy in our national Church.
Stephen – “Within the Church in Britain, the main administrative unit is of course the individual diocese.” I think you forget that this isn’t the situation in Scotland where episcopalian polity was rejected as the way to structure the Church.
Scotland historically has not liked hierarchy but England has found it difficult to escape it
The Scottish Episcopal Church is structured into dioceses, though the Church of Scotland is not.
Yes there is a small denomination of around 20,000 members often, though unfairly, referred to as “the English Church” just as there are small non-conformist denominations in England not part of the national C of E. What I was saying is that the develpment of the Scottish Church after the Reformation steered away from Episcopalian governance. I think the C of E does tend to think too highly of itself referring to itself in Wales as “The Church in Wales” (what, no others?), and “The Church of Ireland”. Archbishop Runcie was once reportedly making a blunder when in Aberdeen of saying “I’ve never been in this part of England before”.
There are other ways of managing the structure of the Church and doffing the cap to the Bishop was not the way North of the border.
And, of course, “The Church” is not co-extensive with the CofE, even in England. There are denominations with very varied hierarchical structures, from the “flatness” of the Congregationalists to the charismatic leadership of some Pentecostal groups. In every case leaders, good and bad, do emerge, with greater or less freedom to act within the structures and with more or less accountability. Sadly abuses of power can emerge everywhere although – I would humbly suggest – some structures and ecclesiologies may allow them to take place more easily than others.
I personally do not understand how a Christian could claim that Bishops and Archbishops have absolute probity. For myself I believe all have sinned, especially me. Of course one hopes and trusts that Bishops are people with integrity. However, the temptation to cover up, lie or bully when your back is against the wall or you are tasked with a job which cannot be done in any other way is great. I also do not believe that a Bishop, however great his integrity has never misjudged matters or made a mistake. And I am talking here about the great who are good. For these reasons alone I believe that Bishops should not hold the absolute power granted them and that there should exist an independent system for serious concerns of any kind. A system giving absolute power to the person at the top will attract the bullies and the ruthless; those are simply like this or have taken to bullying because they are incompetent and cannot carry out their business in any other way. Such a system breeds corruption. I suspect that many clergy do not wish to be treated as infallible. Yet the Church of England clings to this notion despite the spectacle of one scandal followed by another and yet another exposing corrupt practices. Some Bishops may actually be relieved to be treated as human, able to get it wrong like the rest of us. It must be stressful to know you can only do right when you know yourself to be fully human. It would give the bullies and paedophiles no place to hide. And that would be a very good thing.
Despite my taking orders in the CofE in 2006, all the forces that come with being born in rural Cumberland in 1950 to Methodist dissenting stock (dissenting in the broadest and best sense, together with a solitary childhood, made me essentially congregational in terms of governance, though not iliturgically. As far as I could tell, my congregations were of like mind. I ministered in the Dioceses of Derby, Leighlin (Church of Ireland) and Lichfield, and in none of these were members of the congregation at all interested in the deanery, let alone the diocese. It was a rare event to see any of “my” deanery synod reps at meetings despite my enticing blandishments. Rules and guidelines were simply ignored if it so suited. I’m not much bothered about what the Bible says since it was written for a different mindset in a different culture with a different history. For example, I ignored church “rules” (but not civil law) about baptism, first communion and confirmation, and wedding preparation. I said that I would never be a barrier to grace, so if it moved I baptised it and offered communion (Orthodox style) unless the parents objected. I told the bishop who nodded. Most of my baptisms were from a nearby conservative evangelical parish that refused baptism unless parents had done “their” course or were unmarried. If I’d adopted this last policy, I’d have done only a fraction of the baptisms in the register. As regards my canonical vows to obey the bishop in all things lawful and honest, I took a very narrow definition of lawful that did not include what I regarded as guidelines, and as to honest – well there have been plenty examples of episcopal dishonesty, so I felt no urge to bother with that one. As others have said it is time for those vows to be abolished and for the nature of episcopacy to be revised. The English reformation was never completed, so bishops still have mediaeval notions. Some, it seems, act upon them.
Stephen highlights the power of the bishop in his or her diocese, but – having been part of Bishop’s Leadership Teams or equivalent for some years – there is also the power of the incumbent and even the congregation in their parish. In each case the power seems to be more to apply the brakes against change than to apply the accelerator for changes.
I suspect part of the tension at the moment is of bishops tasked with change, but without the power to effect change. It requires soft-skills, time, conversations and honesty, and complex issues do not have easy solutions, nor is there one solution or a magic bullet.
The labyrinthine legalities, the historic deals with parliament and with patrons to help with power and funding, and the historically contingent attempt to create a church both catholic and reformed have combined to make changes very difficult. Each diocese and each parish has a story going back years.
Congregationalism appeals because it can be more fleet of foot, but often only in the first generation before it quickly becomes a club for the members who like it that way, and IICSA has highlighted the levels of abuse in the more congregational churches as well as in the episcopally-led denominations.
For the Church of England in particular, there are added difficulties in both the Establishment connection and the vast number of listed buildings in a country which now values its history but not enough to pay for it. Our buildings are often like Saul’s armour, made for a much bigger entity than the one pushed to wear it.
For me a further demand that creates still more noise, is the consumerist culture where growth in numbers is demanded so loudly.
Possibly the most fundamental question in all this is how local congregations can / should / do connect more widely, how that is organised and how succession is managed, such that the next generations are connected without being trapped.
A hermit crab to grow and survive has to leave its old shell and successfully find another; equally, were it to shrink, it would need to downsize, but hermit crabs do not then get penalties for leaving old shells lying around!
I’m afraid that for me personally the fundamental question is why my Bishop has taken the stance of covering up abuse and allowing it to continue, and why no one at all in the wider institution can do anything about it. Others in Diocesan leadership roles have taken their lead from him. Our church warden resigned in frustration, as has someone with an important role in the Registry. I agree that those in leadership roles under him are no better. Our congregation is disaffected, the churchwarden resigned in frustration, and this is the second incumbent in a row facing disciplinary proceedings for safeguarding failures. He has followed the leadership of the Diocese set by the Bishop. Frankly I don’t think it matters which system of government you choose if the people heading it are corrupt. Changing the system without changing the personnel will leave you with the same people corrupting the new system. That is why it is so important not to give any leadership absolute power, whether it is a Bishop or a team of people. It is no better to have an all powerful corrupt cabal then to have an all powerful Bishop deliberately ignoring national safeguarding guidelines, harassing and reabusing complainants, and covering up abuse. At least not from the point of view of those who have been abused. It would make a big difference if my Bishop did not hold absolute power and could be challenged. Having a national safeguarding team who can only try to help, but cannot force a recalcitrant Bishop to fulfil his duty says it all. That is my problem and the problem other survivors face. We currently have an Archbishop who refused to offer an apology when requested at a national enquiry and we too then face Bishops who either cover up themselves or collude with others to turn a blind eye. Congregations are powerless in these circumstances and connecting more widely will not move our Bishop to change. The ability to oust a Bishop in this situation does not exist. Others have written of the pointlessness of bringing cdm against Bishops. As Stephen has pointed out so well, it is the absolute power of those at the top which is fundamentally problematic.
Mary. I think you are making the making the same point as I am. If the person at the top of any organisation is flawed in their maintenance of justice, then that will have an affect throughout the system. Sadly we are seeing a number of ethically compromised bishops today. When this happens it has a severely detrimental affect on others lower down the food-chain. Some will become flawed following the example of their boss, while others have to exist with overwhelming sadness and frustration that their attempts to do the right thing are being undermined.
“ our trust and reliance on bishops and others with judiciary responsibilities has not been misplaced for the most part” – perhaps this is true, or perhaps the lack of any ability to hold Bishops to account, and the propensity that the C of E has (had?) for covering things up that are detrimental to its reputation, means that bad behaviour by bishops has gone unchallenged and unspoken about- at least in public. Perhaps these two examples that you speak about here are evidence of a new culture, where people will speak publicly about the misconduct of those in power who abuse it.