When I began the Surviving Church blog in 2013, I thought of it as an attempt to help and support many wounded Christians who, for various reasons, had fallen out of love with the Church. I was not at the beginning thinking politically in any way. The ‘victims’ at that time were mainly those who had fallen under the spell of charismatic/narcissistic leaders who were bent on personal enrichment or other forms of gratification. The motives of these exploitative leaders were simple and could easily apply to anyone who takes a position of institutional power. Abuse falls into one or more of three categories. Speaking generally, leaders abuse in order to obtain the gratification that is afforded by money, power or sex.
In my early years of writing, I particularly found myself wanting to help the few who found their way to my blog with some ‘sensible’ teaching on how to read Scripture. By sensible I was simply trying to share a little of the scholarly approach to the Bible that was part of the way that universities taught it in the 60s. I had benefitted from eight years full-time theological education in my youth. Was it not now time to give back a little of the fruits of all that time and reading? It was clear to me that fundamentalist approaches to the text of the Bible simply caused endless unsolvable problems for a reader. A little bit of scholarly insight could unlock some of these intractable dilemmas. As an example, I found myself discussing the story of Noah and the inexplicable (for the conservative reader) shift in recording the numbers of each animal-type which entered the Ark. Was it two or was it seven?
As time went on, it became clear that abusive power was being exercised over some individuals in the church not only in the way the Bible was being taught to them. A misuse of power was being found in churches of all kinds, not just in conservative evangelical churches. To see how it was gradually dawning on me that that power had far wider toxic tentacles than ‘abusive’ bible teaching, a reader needs to refer to my posts of 2015. In that year I returned repeatedly to the life and times of Trinity Church Brentwood and its leader Michael Reid. Another character that also attracted my attention was the bishop of the Diocese of Sabah in Malaysia. In both situations there were extensive corruptions of power. An issue in covering these and other abuse stories was that it was becoming increasingly clear that an abusive incident was not necessarily just about individual misbehaviour. An abusive act committed by one bad apple had the unfortunate tendency to corrupt many of the other apples in the barrel. To expose or discuss evil in one place was perhaps to shed light on systemic institutional misuses of power. I was beginning to see the way that an evil act committed by one individual frequently involved other people – whether they were bystanders or superiors. This ‘political’ dimension in the case was always going to be unpopular when it was revealed. Writing about the abuse of power that takes place within an institution will often be seen as a subversive threat to the whole institution where it takes place. One example of the way that evil acts committed by a few became toxic to an entire institution was brought out in the IICSA hearings over the Diocese of Chichester. The entire diocese was damaged by the activities of an area bishop and a group of sexually abusive clergymen. The evil was not confined to those people. A number of officials in the Diocese had their reputations undermined and a former Diocesan Bishop had his memory besmirched by his failure to act honourably and honestly in his dealing with the problem. Damaged reputations matter to individuals and institutions. Pointing out the obvious discrepancies in a narrative, which is the kind of thing that bloggers do, can be legally treacherous. If a blogger suggests that a church leader has behaved less than honourably, the threat of defamation hangs over them.
I have only had four threats of legal action against me and Surviving Church. Three were in reference to statements made by other people on this blog. The fact that senior church leaders should employ legal personnel to scrutinise blogs like this one, in case we have allowed something through potentially defamatory is, in some ways, flattering. It is an indirect compliment that senior clergy think that the musings of a retired clergyman in the north of England have some influence. It also suggests that our House of Bishops believe that the work of safeguarding can be controlled and furthered by the force of legal threats. A fellow blogger is facing the threat of legal action at present. In reading his reaction to this threat from a senior member of the Church of England, I realise that I am less robust than he is in facing such challenges. The merest whisper of legal action has me instantly deleting offending sections or entire blogs. My reasoning tells me that the safeguarding narratives I record on this blog are not really my personal battles. Others may have better access to information and personal testimony than me, and thus do a better job at promoting the struggle for justice and transparency. I certainly recognise that I am less resilient in the face of legal threats than the ex-Dean of Christ Church, whose farewell sermon can, I hope, be read here tomorrow immediately after it is delivered. I hope to include more material on this event when available, even though I will not be present in person.
Legal threats, heavy handed action by church officials towards bloggers all suggest a considerable degree of institutional panic. One interpretation is that the Church is completely floundering in its response to the numerous crises about safeguarding and bullying on the church’s agenda at present. The clunky response of threatening bloggers with legal action gives the Church and its bishops a thoroughly bad look especially in times of heavy financial pressure. It may be gratifying for me to think that someone is actually being paid to read my musings; the same will not be true for the ordinary church member. They will resent the fact that funds are flowing to expensive legal companies to pay for vanity litigation. Does Joe Public actually care what blogger A thinks of Bishop B? Would the Church not look better if it prioritised helping its ordinary clergy pay their fuel bills?
The recent outpourings of Martyn Percy in The Times and elsewhere following his departure from Christ Church and the Church of England, show he feels failed in his search for institutional justice. He raises a wide range of safeguarding problems in the Church as well as other issues around leadership that currently face the Church of England. Whether or not we take sides in the dispute between Percy and the College and the Church, it is clear that in having two powerful institutions ranged against him, the reputation of both these bodies has been severely undermined. Not for the first time is the Church seen to be using its power in a heavy-handed way, The four-year persecution of Percy, while not initiated by the Church, does not seem to have elicited anything in the way of compassionate assistance from the Diocese of Oxford. Indeed, the opposite appears to be true. Throughout the process, both Percy and his supporters seem to have attracted the hostility of the diocese. In this, the bishop and his staff seem to have forgotten large sections of the Scriptures they claim to follow. Somehow the wider Church (and here we are particularly talking about the Church of England) seems to have lost the ability and knowledge of how to make its clergy and people feel safe. Safety is something you feel when you are in a place or with a person you can completely trust. Martyn’s departure from the CofE has indicated that he no longer trusts or feels safe in his old church. If that sentiment ever becomes widespread in the Church, it could mark the beginning of the end of our national institution, the CofE. Legal threats by bishops and solicitors writing letters to bloggers may be small things in themselves, but they suggest a leadership culture unable to retain power without creating a miasma of fear. That is not a Church that I, and I suspect many others, want to be associated with.
Sad that Martyn Percy is leaving. But I really understand the fear. I have been totally sensitised to the merest whisper of abuse. I have refused to move from where I am now at least in part because I feel safe, and I have no confidence I would be anywhere else. I’m not taking anymore risks, I’ve had enough. I think people don’t understand how worn out you become. You’re right about resilience. And, do look after yourself!
Bullying a blogger, like any other bullying comes down to fear. The bully picks on the seemingly weakest person in the chain, and hopes to intimidate them into silence. The bully hopes his fear will be transferred to this blogger and that he will feel better himself by being bigger and stronger and have the resources to litigate derived from gifts from parishioners everywhere, considerable resources that he assumes the blogger does not possess.
Anyone who has been a bully and repented of it, and anyone who has come through being bullied will recognise these factors.
I’ve read several articles in most of the “quality” press and other specialist Christian news sites, where details published and vetted by their own in-house lawyers are repeated or extrapolated on blogs, but only the blogs are picked on (admittedly as far as we know). As well as cowardly, this lacks much in the way of any logical sense. The old Church of England technique of silence would at least be more effective for him, although of course I don’t support it.
I was impressed with how candid Percy was in “The Times”. Despite a breakdown he stood up to what he was put through. This event is one of those quantum changes, those dramatic shifts in the balance of power, where looking back in years to come, people will recognise Percy’s impact.
Bullying is a terrible “look”. The fear behind it is of collapse of reputation, the very thing they attempted to do with Martyn. If there was any weight behind the attempts to silence the bloggers, which is akin to using a fire extinguisher on a volcano, then the major news media would be withdrawing articles. The reverse is the case.
I have a number of good friends who are lawyers. Like any professional they will be looking carefully at their own risk profile in exposure to unedifying behaviour of clients, and will be used to having their own careful advice ignored. I don’t blame the lawyers.
There are no real winners in bullying. The Church of England has already lost big with Percy. Its power abuse has failed again.
Thank you for this, Stephen. Much said that needed to be said.
I think you have been very brave Stephen in allowing survivors to blog and have done us a wonderful service. Many complainants naturally are fearful of threats and keep quiet. They have already suffered too much and it is craven of The church to threaten them. I would not expect anyone to stand up to a threat on my behalf. Those on the receiving end of threats, know the true situation, and this is what gives some of us the courage to stand up to the petty tyrants threatening us. By issuing threats, they are displaying their lack of capacity to deal appropriately with the situation and their own inadequacy. If I have chosen to stand up to my bullying tyrants, I do so for the very good reason I need to be safe when attending services and I need my guide dog to be protected from harassment. This will not happen unless I pursue My complaint in the face of threats. I have thoughts of leaving The church because I do not feel safe, and indeed am not safe. I can understand why others do so. These tyrants blight you for life. As English Athena says, you become worn out but realise you will not be any more safe anywhere else. The solicitor whose threats are still current has let me know he has read my blogs about his threatening behaviour. I presume he may well have brought it to the attention of his senior partner, our Diocesan Registrar. My hope is that an Archbishop will decide that complainants should not be threatened simply for reporting abuse and safeguarding failures. Goodness knows what threats others are under, but I suspect there are numbers of threats out there and many are suffering under the weight of threats. I will let you know if the Church decides threatening those who complain is just, right, and appropriate. At least we will know what stance our leaders are taking, and can decide for ourselves what our response is to be. But if threats are to be the order of the day, we should be under no illusion that what is said by our leaders about safeguarding is an accurate illustration of what really goes on and that threats are perceived to be necessary to continue the cover up of safeguarding failures.
Once again, thank you for this website. I did not just dip in and out of it, as was thought that many who find it do; indeed, I read nearly every post and the responses to them several times.
I’m wondering if those struggling with the questions raised here are familiar with the relatively recent discipline of social psychology? I also wonder if the evolution of this discipline (largely in academia, I believe) and those struggling with the kinds of questions raised here may have repeatedly bypassed each another. I don’t know if this discipline is now taught to those preparing for service in the church, and, if so, when such instruction commenced. Even if it is now incorporated, my sense is that most readers here have long experience of life and may not have run across this body of research. It stretches us from considering the concrete things we do as persons, for good or for evil, to considering our behaviors and responses as part of the whole complex of social interactions…from a linear consideration to a far more systemic one.
A brief introduction is here:
https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/defining-social-psychology-history-and-principles/
Wikipedia also offers an overview, as do other sites. The above is more readable.
One branch of this discipline is the study of moral disengagement, which, briefly, occurs when the moral principles supposedly held fast by individuals or groups are allowed to be overridden in the interest of various forms of both personal and institutional self-interest, both conscious and unconscious.
An brief overview is found in the abstract at the top of the following paper. Read on
for a denser description, although, alas, the concluding hopes, written in 1997, ran into a reality check otherwise known as the human condition.
https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1999PSPR.pdf
The author has also written a book on the subject (2016) titled Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live With Themselves. A short excerpt can be read on Google Books. Truth in writing: I’m finite: i have not read it. I did, however, read some of Dr. Bandura’s papers a number of years ago, well before the book was written, near the time when I myself was a target of institutional bullying. I found his ideas helpful then and and continue to do so as I continue this journey through life.
I write from the U.S., and am an Episcopalian. In our confession of sin (I don’t know if it is framed the same way in the CofE), we ask forgiveness for what we have done, what we have left undone, and the evils done on our behalf. I find the idea of moral disengagement enormously helpful in weighing these petitions, especially when considering that last phrase.
Once again, thank you for this website. I did not just dip in and out of it, as was suggested many do; indeed, I read nearly every post and the responses to them several times..
I’m wondering if those struggling with the questions raised on this website are familiar with the relatively recent discipline of social psychology? I also wonder if the evolution of this discipline (largely in academia, I believe) and those struggling with the kinds of questions raised here may have repeatedly bypassed each another. I don’t know if this discipline is taught to those preparing for service in the church, and, if so, when such formation commenced. Even if it is now being incorporated, my sense that most readers here have long experience of life and may not have run across this body of research. It stretches us from considering the concrete things we do as persons, for good or for evil, to considering our behaviors and responses in the whole complex of our social interactions…from a linear consideration to a more systemic one.
A brief introduction is here:
https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/chapter/defining-social-psychology-history-and-principles/
Wikipedia also offers an overview, as do other sites. The above is more readable.
One branch of this discipline is the study of moral disengagement, which, briefly, occurs when moral behavior of individuals or groups is allowed to be overridden in the interest in various forms of both personal and institutional self-interest, both conscious and unconscious.
An brief overview is found in the abstract at the top of the following paper. Read on
for a denser description, although, alas, his concluding hopes written in 1997 ran into a reality check.
https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1999PSPR.pdf
The author of this article has written a book on the subject (2016) titled Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live With Themselves. A short excerpt can be read on Google Books. Other titles are available on the same subject. Truth in writing: I have not read any of these books. I did, however, read some of Dr. Bandura’s papers a number of years ago, before the books were written, around the time when I myself was a target of bullying. I found his ideas helpful then and and do so as I continue my own journey through life.
I write from the U.S., and am an Episcopalian. In our confession of sin (I don’t know if it is framed the same way in the CofE), we ask forgiveness for what we have done, what we have left undone, and the evils done on our behalf. I find the idea of moral disengagement enormously helpful in weighing these three petitions, especially the latter.
Hi Donna, thanks for this and it is indeed a fascinating subject. The blog has covered many times aspects of group mind, such as suggested concepts like “institutional narcissism”.
There is a fair bit of academic literature out there which attempts to synthesise the disciples of sociology, psychology etc from different angles. When I first came across writing from Freud, Bion and other later psychoanalytic based authors I thought it was incredible and everyone would be drawn to their deep insights on group behaviour. Not so.
As well as struggling to understand or accept the material, communities don’t often want to be “understood”. Both in business and in church I have found often that people prefer their self-destructive behaviour than to change.
The subjects themselves often become ridiculed and satirised. There may of course be some validity in this harsh treatment. One of the organisations I follow to receive regular literature on the subject, is hopelessly disorganised!
Popular subjects get funding. Unpopular ones don’t. This is always going to be a challenge. Within a dysfunctional organisation oftentimes there is someone (at the top) profiting very well from it. They are never going to call in the consultants to change this, although will be happy to take advice on improving the performance of their managers.
That said, I still study these matters as much as I can because we can at least help others make sense of what’s going on in their places of worship. And those concerned others on the periphery, with less of a vested interest, can often be influenced to move society for change.
Thanks again for the references and best wishes in your own research!