Some months ago I posted up two case studies of abusive churches(53 and 58), one in Britain and one on the other side of the world. The information posted up is freely available on the web, so I make no apology for using them here as exemplars of what happens in churches when leaders give way to power games over church members. Arguably such power abuse is exercised as a way of relieving some deep inadequacy in their lives.
The saga of Bishop Albert Vun has come to a sort of conclusion with his expected death from pancreatic cancer on the 15th July. I say ‘sort of conclusion’ because it appears that even after his death, he had the power to accuse and disturb those whom he had treated badly in life. The funeral service was expected to be a recalling and honouring of his memory organised by other senior churchmen. Instead what the congregation received seemed to be a kind of rant from beyond the grave, directed at those who had tried to oppose his alleged tyrannical behaviour while alive. This was organised by his widow and family. Bishop Vun had known that an accusation of financial impropriety hung over his memory. The response was to tell the congregation that everyone at some point has stolen money. Somehow that bizarre statement was meant to make everything OK as far as he was concerned. He in fact only admitted stealing from his grandmother, not the large scale expenditures that have occurred under his watch. There were other attempts to put himself in the victim role by a posthumous pardon of those who had accused him. The attempt to forgive his accusers, while avoiding any explanation of his actions did not seem to resolve anything. Rather it was experienced as a continuation of the verbal lashings out that many had experienced from him during his life. A DVD of his final sermon has been made and this, with all its bitterness, is thought to be suitable to be shown in every church in the diocese.
The situation of complete demoralisation in the Diocese continues and no obvious successor is in the wings to take over. Apart from a number expensive vanity building projects which need to be wound up, there is the no small matter of various institutions being run by members of Bishop Vun’s immediate family. Nepotism runs deep and it is likely that all the main posts have been filled with the Bishop’s ‘ yes’ men over recent years. While my information is based on the admittedly biased opinions of those who opposed the Bishop, there are enough objective facts, including the report of the Provincial Working Party, to suggest that things will not recover easily. Last but not least is the low educational calibre of the young clergy ordained in recent years. It will take a tough person to sort all this out. I will keep an eye on things and report further news to the blog when there is something to report. In passing it should be mentioned that mention of Bishop Vun has brought us a number of readers from the Diocese of Sabah. They are most welcome.
The other saga on which I reported some months ago is that of Trinity Church Brentwood. There is in fact little to report here as the chief pastor refuses to move towards the many victims of the church in any meaningful way. A flicker of interest was aroused a few weeks ago when an invitation appeared on the church web-site inviting those who believed they had been wronged to approach the church for a conversation. A brave individual called Catherine did as was requested. Although she details some terrible examples of mistreatment towards her and her children, the apology she received seems to have been neither heartfelt or particularly deep. She regrets the time and emotional energy that was put into making the contact. Peter Linnecar, the chief pastor, made no attempt to meet up with her. The original wording on the website which expressed ‘regret’ at the past was also vague and lacking in real understanding of the depth of trauma of the Peniel victims. The conclusion of all of us who watch this process was that church was trying to make the gesture, not to help victims, but to address an audience of its own current members. I still find myself putting on some quite trenchant comments about what I see happening in this church. I suppose that my trip to the States has given me a greater awareness of the appalling things that churches can and do do to their members.
These two churches I just two examples of situations that go horribly wrong. In each case there is hope because somebody has been prepared to challenge the status quo using the power of blogs. It is remarkable that the way the Internet gives power to people who want to stand up against tyranny and evil whether in the churches or elsewhere. In the past abuse had still greater power for the fact that it was hidden from sight. Now the light of public opinion can mitigate to some extent the evils that have been done by individuals through the abuse and exploitation of others.
I would welcome any comments on what strikes me as another form of spiritual abuse, which has not received any attention that I’m aware of on this blog, so this isn’t a direct comment on any particular post, but I attach it here because it seems like some sort of antithesis of the kind of cultic authoritarian leadership you dissect, and I feel that in some sort of way which you might want to elucidate, opposites feed into each other.
I went to a Church of England wedding service in a village church yesterday which was a hollow dismal mockery of anything one might hope for, to the extent that it was no comfort that the congregation appeared to find this travesty amusing and a fun p*ss-take.
How to describe it without seeming po-faced and judgemental about small details of style and substance? For example, normally I wouldn’t want to be critical about small things about vestments, yet in this case, by the end of the service it seemed like a visual symbol of the disrespect and vacuousness throughout that the priest arrived with his cope stuffed into a small plastic bag, and proceeded to wear it totally crumpled and creased.
Bizarrely, they had chosen the series one alternative service, but even that short user-friendly version of BCP had to be mangled in order to undermine any impression that the marriage itself or the service should not be undertaken “unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly”. Thus for just one example, the priest did not declare the couple were man and wife, instead saying “you’ve done it!”.
There was a short talk which was the most incoherent ramble about the wedding at Cana I’ve yet heard. Perhaps there should be a plus for at least trying to relate to that story, but it was butchered.
The priest had no control over the family members who participated, and didn’t do them the courtesy of introducing their contributions or thanking them. One result was that the a brother of the groom was allowed for a prank to read an irrelevant and incomprehensible piece of nonsense verse instead of the Song of Songs reading supposedly on the service order.
To me the most shocking failure was that the priest allowed the bride to mischievously mangle her vows, saying “for richer – not for poorer” (knowing giggle).
We were asked to give to a collection to show our appreciation of the CofE, even though the family will have paid hundreds of pounds to have this farce performed.
What can I say – perhaps you can help. I feel sad and inwardly numb when something that should be so significant is reduced to a childish game by a man of no discernible spiritual weight colluding with pantomime participants. If they choose a church wedding he should lead them by example of some dignity into showing a basic respect for what it might be about.
This kind of abuse by abdication and bankruptcy of leadership won’t create the kind of victims of cultic mind-control that you explore on this blog. But it will just as surely prevent those present from discerning anything life-giving in the Gospel, and so is another form of placing obstacles that cause little ones to stumble. I came away ashamed of my church, and only thankful that the many weddings I help to arrange here as administrator and often attend to sing in the choir are so totally different, beautiful, meaningful and affirming for everyone – joyful in a true sense.
Haikusinenomine. I do not know where to start. What you describe is not abuse in the normal sense of the word but it does share some features with some of the cases I have wanted to describe. The clergyman you describe is victim of a particular culture that most of us would feel inadequate. I do not want to pontificate too much on this without knowing more, but clearly his behaviour was crass, crude and insensitive. What he shares with cultic abusers is the way that the culture over which he presides probably prevents anyone growing out and beyond his limitations, as surely they must need to do. There is a time for humour and a time for dignity and clearly this clergyman has not learnt the difference. If anyone buys into this severely truncated cultural and theological perspective they will be unable to grow themselves. Cultic leaders prevent their followers from growing and clearly this character also does the same.
For me the incident raises the importance of mentoring or supervision of all Anglican clergy by someone who is not part of the hierarchy. They are supposed to get it now but it does appear to be in operation in my neck of the woods. A skilled mentor would pick up this inappropriate insensitivity to theological and pastoral issues and might be able to push them in the right direction. Haiku I would share your shuddering horror at what you saw yesterday. I would want to look at the training provided and other issues but that is not going to happen. Leading worship and taking weddings requires one to develop a sensitivity to people, groups and situations. It is something that comes quicker for some than others. If you don’t have it you need a wife, mentor or friend in the congregation to say whether you hit the right note. Churchwardens also need training in being able to say ‘you made a complete hash of that Vicar’. Far too few do this sadly.
Yup. I’ve seen communion services totally mangled, so far as I could see, simply because the celebrant was too stupid to do it right! And no, the wardens don’t say.
Thank you both for your thoughts. I agree that this kind of thing does not offer anyone the possibility of growth, and therefore the effect is of spiritual pandering rather than leadership. The couple themselves were given no opportunity to reflect on what demands their new status might make if they are to make their union a success, and nothing of substance to look back on that might help them when the going gets tough. There was not even any reflection at all on the meaning of love, which is such an obvious opportunity at a wedding. Meanwhile for the congregation, the idea that a priest’s role might be to keep the rumour of God alive was severely stifled – I had to wonder if he had heard this rumour himself, or was it something long discredited and forgotten?
I agree that the role of the hierarchy should be to provide possibilities to enable and re-vitalise where something is lacking – but some people don’t respond to mentoring etc; the will isn’t there. Then how to make the decision that someone should not be allowed to carry on going through the motions, nominally providing much-needed manpower, until they can collect their pensions? These sorts of questions are rather beyond my scope. All I can see is that no human system can ensure spiritual health and godliness throughout the church. We must depend on God for that, and expect many human failures. At the same time though it’s easy at times to wonder why there is such malaise, and what more could be done to encourage a right spirit.
It’s hard to see really how or why the average churchwarden would feel empowered and willing to step into such a hornet’s nest. The kinds of priest who are most open to constructive criticism from the laity are not necessarily the ones who most need it.
It is the church wardens’ legal duty to keep the Bishop informed of problems, but most wardens are not properly briefed so they don’t know. They are the Bishop’s officers, but the incumbent will simply treat them like church officers, to put the heating on before services. Nowadays, they are used to take services when the incumbent falls out with the Readers. I think of it as corruption. That no-one is bothered by bad behaviour.