by Paul Skirrow
Definition of bullying: The abuse and mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger, more powerful, etc. It is prone to or characterized by overbearing mistreatment and domination of others.
The clergy of the Church of England, if asked directly, would probably be able to identify instances of personal bullying by the hierarchy, either of themselves or of others. Most however, would accept that this is not too common. However, it would seem that the identifiable mechanisms for direct one on one bullying have been embedded as part of the structures and systems of the Church. In that way they do not need to be personalised in any hierarchical figure as they become the normal practice of the management of the institution. Also, while resenting this ever encroaching managerialism, we find it hard to resist it, and to identify it in a way which reveals it for what is it. The hierarchy are engaged in bullying even without their activity being identified as such by them or others. Finally, when clergy suffer from bullying in this embedded form, it is difficult to pinpoint and identify a practice which is diffuse and permeates a whole system, and it is the nature of such a system that it is far from easy or safe for an individual to make a stand when isolated.
Below are some examples of the way bullying has become embedded, and is, in fragmented and generalised ways, experienced by most clergy.
- The removal of freehold. This paved the way for creating weaker and less protected clergy, making them easier targets. Employment rights were undercut severely through this process. The checks and balances built into the system were removed and a poor substitute, from the point of view of the clergy, was introduced: Common Tenure.
- The Clergy Discipline Measure is a fine example of what happens when the protection of freehold renders clergy vulnerable. Its destructive weaknesses have been identified but whether the Church has the will or the way to redeem the situation remains to be seen. The practice of being suspended and cut off from support and the exercise of one’s vocation, is a definition of being guilty until being proved innocent. The process feels like being bullied by clergy who have had to go through it, and it hangs, like Cicero’s sword of Damocles, over the heads of all priests going about their parish duties.
- The constant demand for responses to questionnaires from the “centre”, over and above what used to be the usual documents, seem like a deliberate checking up process to make sure the clergy are doing what they should. This is demeaning.
- The proliferation of initiatives cascading from the “centre” remind clergy that they are not really doing all they could to fulfil their vocation, and their practice of ministry needs remodelling. Belittling the vulnerable, persistently reminding them of their inadequacies, is an act of bullying.
- The devising of Diocesan strategies and plans into which parishes are expected to fit has the same effect, and reminds clergy that their traditional and faithful activities are inadequate. There’s a comic/tragic exercise watching clergy persuade their PCCs to produce a mission statement that fits in with the latest alliterative straplines from the Diocese and its elaborately illustrated and verbose Mission Plan. Again, the message is to do it the Diocesan way, not the way of your parish and people. This undermines those in weaker positions.
- The constant money pressure through Parish Share could be described whimsically as stealing the parishes’ dinner money, which is an old, traditional and established form of bullying. That aside, clergy are often made to feel as failures when they can’t up the giving to fund the extra staff, initiatives, and programmes of the Dioceses.
- The pressure to put bums on pews reflects a contempt for low numbers. Two or three gathered together represents a failure by the clergy. The message of failing is persistent and insidious. (See: Attitudes to, and funding for, rural parish ministry – Church Times Letters 11th February 2022.) Numerical growth is the key to “success” and the only indicator of “success”. There are instances of Church House seizing on apparent growth from the statistics and asking to learn how the church managed it. Demographic changes such as immigration from predominantly Anglican countries, or two or three Christian families moving in do not count as “techniques”. Neither do proper pastoral care, or good funeral practices.
- The emphasis on the demography of the church is a criticism about the failure of clergy to fill the pews with younger people. However, when has the dominant age group been under 30, and for how many decades has the church been singing the same song about bringing in young people, without effect? That history doesn’t matter when it comes to bullying today’s clergy. Ironically, those who “failed” in the past are now in a position to criticise those who “fail” in the same ways now. Younger people have other things to do – visiting family, caring for elderly relatives, or taking the only opportunity for leisure together. Make sure they know we are there if they need us.
- The pressure to “reinvent” liturgy, to make it more “relevant”, “attractive”, or even inane, undermines clergy who are competent in doing what they have been doing well for years. Parish priests know as a rule what feeds their people and sustains them in Christian hope, if they listen attentively. Yet it would seem, according to the deluge of ideas from the “centre”, that they don’t.
- Persistent pastoral reorganisation, or the threat of it, disturbs, threatens and worries clergy who have no way to resist, especially those without Freehold. It creates and sustains anxiety, increasing vulnerability and the desire to comply with the demands of the bullies. Some rural Parishes seem to be reorganised in their groups almost annually or every time someone locally moves on. One rural churchwarden told me recently, “I’m not sure what there is to reorganise. We are down to one service monthly usually taken by a Lay Reader. There are 12 churches and one half-time priest.” The pressure to take on more is hard to resist because refuse and “even that which you have will be taken away”. (A standard line of one Northern Archdeacon.)
- The constant widening and increasing of responsibilities takes away the focus of clergy on the essentials of ministry. The administration, the returns, the courses, meetings, the three line whips to attend episcopally organised events. The essential Calling is reduced to the side-lines.
- Appraisals and Reviews often insult clergy in their approach to questioning their work, competence, and faithfulness. Done in the name of support they have been experienced as quite the opposite.
- There are increasingly rigid frameworks of safeguarding, health and safety, etc. which constrict initiative, have resulted in injustices to victims and alleged perpetrators, and create fear of sensitive practices and pastoral action.
- The recently stated aim to have lay-led churches is saying to priests, “Your calling is outdated and not needed. It doesn’t work.“ It completely misses the point that the vocations of the laity are in their families, communities and workplaces. The church’s role is to serve them and think with them theologically about that task. They are not to be co-opted as free labour to sustain an institution for the sake of its hierarchy.
All the above, in effect, outlines institutionalised bullying. It suggests that we have developed management practices designed to manipulate a weakened clergy in order to force them to do what the hierarchy wants through the structures the hierarchy controls. It is the practice of the powerful dominating weaker and more vulnerable people.
What is to be done? Many clergy quite rightly sit lightly to the above where they can, dismissing it out of frustration. This is still possible for those who have managed to hold on to their freehold. For others I would argue that a quiet resistance is required. A collective stance which allows such bullying to pass by or wither in the in-box. Alongside that, listen to our people and reassert the fact that those we serve have a different view and we are necessarily heeding their needs. Treat intrusive questions in questionnaires and assessments with quiet dignity, while indicating their irrelevance to your situation; a simple “N/A” works well. Use appraisals creatively to rediscover the excitement and hope of your vocation rather than follow a hierarchical agenda.
For the hierarchy, stop undermining your clergy in the name of “Ministerial Support”. Have a moratorium on initiatives. Visit and affirm small churches without judging; just enjoy them. There are some wonderful clergy and people out there. Do more theology (or even some theology) on ministry, priesthood and the place of ordinary lay people in the world. Meet one to one with the clergy and listen, don’t try and “lead”. Reconsider the size and financial burden of the large bureaucracies now deemed essential to manage the church.
Much is spoken of bullying and the Church of England has policies and training programmes about how to deal with it. The church knows there is a problem and seeks to prevent it from becoming a greater problem at one level. That is good. However, essential though the prevention of direct one on one bullying is, we need to see how we have integrated bullying into the culture and management of the church over the past two or more decades. If the analysis above has some basis in fact then we need to rethink. We seek to serve God and God’s people. We will never manage that with systems that allow the motives and practices of the powerful to dominate the servants. That’s the way of the world and not the way of God and the Kingdom.
Paul Skirrow is a priest in retirement with experience spanning Urban and Industrial Mission, Parishes, a Retreat Centre, and international networking.
This grim analysis sums up what we’ve been hearing again and again in recent years. To me the Church methodology being adopted smacks of “constructive dismissal” on a grand scale. Basically get with the program or get out.
I do sense also that this is end stage management. Nothing happens quickly in the C of E world of course, so I’m not suggesting by “end stage” 6 months or less. Probably 20 years or more. But the description of forced standardised manual-ised ministry sounds like the accountants are in charge. Rarely is this effective in a people business.
As ever, when the Church imports “management theory” from outside, it tends to botch it. No business would be effective if run like this, unless it were an oligopoly I.e. with no significant competition and a strong need for its services.
Attending a graduation ceremony at theological college a few years ago, I was struck by the sense of hope and optimism there. A number I spoke with seemed full of enthusiasm for a chance to put their undoubted talents and training into practice. Many had no idea what awaited them. I do think a more honest selection process and early heads-up of what the powers really want would save a lot of heartache later and wasted training.
Many clergy I’ve met have demonstrated great ability but considerable diversity in their individual talents, as you would expect. To force this through a one-way-works sausage machine seems absurd. Certainly counterproductive and demoralising. All this seems reasonably obvious such that when it is still being carried out, you do begin to wonder if it is being done deliberately as a way of bullying people out, or constructive dismissal on a grand scale. Grim indeed.
It is apalling and surely an indictment of our religious leaders that a specially chosen and selected workforce is treated like this. The measures taken to foster insecurity make it easier to bully those easily taken advantage of both because they experience a vocation to serve, and because their housing and livelihoods depend on the leadership. Most of my friends and people I mix with are not church going. They have no intention or desire to attend church services and treat with derision what they see as recruitment drives and a lowering of standards when various initiatives are proposed. I have witnessed more people becoming Christians because of the faithful service of a local priest, often when a person is at a time of great personal need. In all cases it is the fact that the priest faithfully served them with no hint of a recruitment drive or any personal gain which inspired them to follow Jesus.
People are savvier now about when they are being “sold” something. I find it off-putting. Programs foisted on reluctant clergy are less likely to come across as sincere. I agree with Mary.
I am interested to read the definition of ‘bullying’ offered at the top of this article. By the criteria of that definition both my husband and I have in the past been clearly bullied by particular members of the hierarchy of the C of E. I am a clergy spouse. The bullying of clergy spouses (in reality clergy wives – male partners of women clergy are not generally treated in the same way) by both the hierarchy and lay people, which I have personally experienced, is a long term disgrace that the Church of England has failed to address. It is shameful. It is especially evil and wicked when it is ‘justified’ (as it sometimes is) by conservative evangelical views concerning the relationship between husbands and wives in marriage. It needs to be made clear that such views are completely unacceptable in the Church of England. Discrimination and bullying against clergy wives is NOT covered by any C of E agreements that allow for discrimination against women clergy.
I don’t know where Paul Skirrow got his definition of bullying. As there is no legal definition in the UK, the most commonly used is that by ACAS: “Bullying may be characterised as offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour, an abuse or misuse of power through means that undermine, humiliate, denigrate or injure the recipient“ .
Bullying of and by clergy and lay people is a largely hidden problem in the church. Hidden because senior staff choose not to engage with it and the problems caused. It causes huge stress and damage both to individuals, their friends and families and also to the ministry of the church.
Marian, I am so sorry to hear your story. It is probably no help to tell you that you are not alone. Have you found balmnet.co.uk? I think you may find it helpful. Also, I am more than happy for Stephen to give you my e-mail address if you think a chat might be helpful. Courage! One of the publications from Archbishops Council had a very helpful appendix on “Harmful Religion” which looked at the doctrine of headship. If you are able to contact me I will try to send it to you.
There is a lot of pressure on clergy. But I don’t think expecting them to follow safeguarding policy is wrong! And in my experience, lay led churches are ways of letting the important people, the clergy, be in charge, and get paid, while the low status people do the donkey work. It’s not just clergy who are bullied, let us remind ourselves.
Indeed. My Reader training incumbent was very frank. ‘I want you to do the more menial things. I want to be free to do more important things.’ The menials included funeral services and baptismal preparation.
That is shocking. I presume he was promoted to archdeacon, dean, or bishop?
At the risk of going beneath myself, Janet, he wishes. He did become Spirituality Adviser for the Diocese, but has not gone further. It WAS shocking. It actually took my breath away. Hey ho. The menials were a joy.
Weird. Those are crucial points of contact with the community! But, yes, that’s the attitude. And Janet, you’re getting cynical in your old age! 😀
EnglishAthena, I know. I have never reconciled to his outlook. Those points are when people need the spiritual guide the most. I am cross-referencing with the discussion on deference here – this strikes me as when we should be deferring to an ‘expert’, one with knowledge and experience, not subbing in a novice. I don’t undersell myself; my people skills were rather more developed. But I was still in training.
The point is, he embodied a top-down approach which reflected a poor understanding of lay ministry, and so led to what Paul Skirrow and you decry in your critiques of co-opted labour. Our Warden of Readers and our Head of Theological and Ministry Training fought valiantly for the fledged Reader ministry and against being used as ‘Vicar’s little helpers’. But all too often, Readers and other lay ministers became the backbone of large rural groups, and in town, were under-utilised. Ì heard many such miserable stories from Readers when I acted as a training chaplain for a time. Bad behaviour towards the underling, often from being under pressure from above, was all too common. But it was part of the wider picture that Paul Skirrow is painting, an ecclesia built on the Roman military model, trying to perform modern managerialism. The worst of both worlds, in my view, neither of them all that charitable.
I admit to being very cynical about the C of E! Hard experience.
I’m not sure it is cynicism such much as realism.
There’s a rationale for why bullies are promoted. Often people are squeamish about shoving people around, so they employ others to do the dirty work for them. It helps them deny to themselves that they are still responsible for the wrong-doing. The enforcer at Lambeth palace (Graystone) is an obvious example. I’ve seen it first hand myself in business.
Brilliant article, Paul. Thanks!
“Most however, would accept that this is not too common” – I wish this statement were true, but it is not. I personally know of two people this year who have been forced out of a job they love, twenty people who are still smarting and grieving from being bullied, and I know of a number of others who are living in fear, not knowing where the next attack is going to come from. When will this persecution stop?
Here in TEC, it is all too common. I wrote a piece for Episcopal Cafe anonymously and it garnered hundreds of responses. Often, the bullying was in the form of micro-aggressions, where taken individually, they seem anonymous, while take as part of a larger pattern are ugly indeed.
PS Speaking of bullying, I sent an email to every bishop here in the US documenting my former rector Bob Malm’s perjury and bullying, and some of the hateful/homophobic comments I have received from parishioners. Thus far, not even the courtesy of a response.
Guess they didn’t get the memo about this being Lent.
The problem of poor relationships of domination and oppression in the Church calls out for new cultures and practices of leadership. Given that the foundation of the Church included a revolutionary model of servant leadership, you can’t help be struck by the irony.
Good to hear from you Andrew! Couldn’t agree more. Was reading about loving our enemies this morning, and growing up in the NE with some bad people, was trying to figure out what I was supposed to have done. Haven’t got very far just now.
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned are the instances in which clergy are bullied by lay people in the church and especially by those on PCCs. There seems to be no protection for clergy in these circumstances and senior staff seem impotent to do anything to change the situation.
Oh yes, I’ve seen that, too. I think bullying is always hard to deal with, and often misunderstood. Other people don’t recognise it, and/or think it’s easy to deal with.
Good morning, Jane. I did mention clergy being bullied by lay people (above) : “Bullying of and by clergy and lay people is a largely hidden problem in the church. Hidden because senior staff choose not to engage with it and the problems caused. It causes huge stress and damage both to individuals, their friends and families and also to the ministry of the church.” It is a serious problem. I have noticed that Bishops seem to be frightened of prominent lay people in the church. There is a body of work from the United States which talks about ‘forced termination’, when clergy are forced to leave their positions. Much of it cannot be directly applied to the CofE, because the research is often looking at those churches which are congregational in governance, i.e. where congregations hire and fire their ministers. Fortunately there are a number of clergy and clergy spouses out there in the ether who report on their bullying by lay people. See, for example, http://www.balmnet.co.uk.
Perhaps I can answer Stephen when he says we will have to wait and see how well bullying is integrated. Because if those at the highest level are currently unwilling to deal with it, it is unlikely real change will ensue. Many readers will be aware that as well as direct bullying, complainants of various types of abuse are effectively bullied for making a complaint. My Rector has bullied me I believe, as a result of colluding with my Diocese over safeguarding complaints. Regular readers will know that my Diocese threatened and bullied me, having me undergo police interviews under caution simply for reporting breaches of a written agreement. So how are the higher ups dealing with this. And as a result are they taking steps to make sure proper strategies are integrated into the management and culture? Readers are probably not holding their breath over this. I made a formal complaint to one Archbishop over the failure of my Bishop to follow guidelines and the law in dealing with my complaint against my Rector, as well as the malicious prosecution brought against me. The Archbishop blanked me totally and ignored me and House of Bishops guidelines. Being of a persevering nature, I persisted and the assistance required by law was given me in the form of bullying tactics telling me I cannot complain. Dear reader, I persevered and asked the other Archbishop for assistance to file cdm in regard to his colleague. As the first Archbishop’s office allocated me another assistant, I wrote stopping the cdm against him. A few weeks passed, no help was given me, and all communication ceased. So I wrote to the Archbishop telling him about the total failure of assistance once more. I did not receive any reply so filed cdm in regard to the Archbishop once more and went shopping. On my return, both the assistant and the Archbishop’s office suddenly found they could communicate with me once more. What a coincidence! When I didn’t file cdm against the Archbishop all help and communications stopped. As soon as I file cdm it gets going again. This does not give me any confidence that those at the top are currently willing to take action over bullying. If they have to be prodded over many months to fulfil a duty to which they must pay regard, they are clearly unwilling to act. This makes it highly unlikely that they will actually integrate a new culture. No doubt pronouncements will be made and new processes will be instituted. They will then be ignored. After all if they currently permit a blind person (me) to be bullied by their Rector and allow their Diocese to bully me with a stream of threats followed up by making police charges easily disproved, they are hardly likely to change the culture of cover up they hold so dear. And others posting on this site have had no satisfaction about bullying tactics, so clearly my case is not an isolated one. No Stephen, with our present leaders in charge, it just ain’t going to happen
Caleb, I’m sorry you’ve had the experience of being bullied at work, and I’m guessing from your two comments above that you’ve also had some negative experiences in the Church of England.
However, it’s discourteous to launch such a broadside without enabling yourself to be identified. You would be more persuasive if you avoided ad hominem attacks and stuck to countering Mr Skirrow’s arguments.
I don’t agree with everything he writes here, but I will say that, like most parish clergy, I’ve had my carefully planned efforts to build up my congregation torpedoed by diocesan initiatives. These are usually ‘one size fits all’ and take no account of local conditions or local progress. It’s immensely frustrating.
Some of the remarks on this thread have been removed because they are discourteous to other contributors. Please keep the comment civil and respectful. I do not want to have to monitor comments but may have to if crossing of acceptable boundaries continues.
Caleb, commentators of this blog have shown that there is currently much wrong as regards the safeguarding measures. They do seem to be rigorous, but too often guidelines are not kept to and corrupt and incompetent practices prevail. I think that clergy being given more freedom to serve their communities whilst keeping to safeguarding guidelines is not the reason for the current and historic levels of abuse and cover up. It is those clergy higher up the food chain with the authority and power to ignore complaints whilst frequently defaming and harassing the complainant for the sake of reputation management which is probably at the root of the problem. And people simply don’t want to attend religious services. It is not just a matter of people leaving church which accounts for low numbers of worshippers. I think that I would feel bullied if I was not able to serve and meet the needs of a community because of one size fits all initiatives. I would definitely feel bullied if I was blamed for the fact that society at large finds church attendance to be something they have no interest in. Clergy are expected to live in the communities they serve. As they are often expected to move, not having a tied house would leave and clergy living far from their parishes whilst trying to sell their old home and buy a new one. Personally I am grateful that they are willing to put up with tied houses and the problems this causes. I much prefer to live in a home of my choosing without the added worry of trying to provide a home in my retirement. I suspect many people would agree. I should add that being a seaman, my husband too had “free” accommodation thrown in. Some jobs call for this. And of course the accommodation is taken into account when fixing salaries. I am sorry you have suffered from being bullied. Too frequently this form of abuse has not been taken as seriously as other types.
Some of the remarks on this thread have been removed because they are discourteous to other contributors. Please keep the comment civil and respectful. I do not want to have to monitor comments but may have to if crossing of acceptable boundaries continues.