The post relating to Christ Church Oxford has been temporarily taken down. I have received various comments including some Kate Wood.

I am carefully checking the piece in the light of these comments and will publish a revised version in due course.

In March 2017 at a retreat centre near Rye in Sussex, an invitation-only conference took place at which thirty six individuals were present.  They were linked to one another through the fact all were men, all ordained and each had some connection with Jonathan Fletcher, the retired Vicar of Emmanuel Wimbledon. Invitations had been sent out in May 2016 for this gathering, and those invited appeared to be the personal selection of Fletcher.  The conference had happened before but there are no details available of where it had been or who had attended.   For this 2017 gathering, sixty were invited and of those, 60% accepted and were present at the Oast Houses Retreat Centre in March.  From an examination of the first list of invitees, we discover that we have an almost complete Who’s Who of the REFORM/ReNew network in England.   In short, there is, from looking at the thirty six names that did attend in March, a fair representation of the entire UK con-evo network.  Jonathan Fletcher was clearly the one in charge of all the proceedings at the conference.

In writing this post, I would ask the reader to be aware of the significance of the date March 2017.  Two things had happened earlier that year, both of which were to impact significantly on the con-evo world of REFORM/ReNew.   At the beginning of 2017, the authorities of the Diocese of Southwark withdrew permission to officiate (PTO) from Jonathan Fletcher.  He was at that point still a powerful figure right across the Anglican evangelical world.  I can be excused in this post for not setting out again the reasons for this ban.  They have already been shared in the public domain. But the fact of an inhibition on Fletcher’s ministry was important because of his powerful and influential hold over so many clergy and institutions at the time.  He had for decades enjoyed real power. This he possessed through patronage, wealth, social charisma and a huge range of contacts.  In particular, there was an entire generation of evangelical clergy, now in their 50s, who looked to him as their mentor.  When the sudden fall came, it would have dismayed some of those close to him.  But the effect on his ongoing ministry seems, in practice, to have been minimal.  Many clergy and congregations seem not to have been told what had happened.  If they did know, many simply ignored the fact that Fletcher was now non-grata with the wider church.  Invitations continued to flow in and Fletcher, now officially retired, was able apparently to enjoy continuing to minister as he wished. He gave talks in 2017 at a Retreat run by St Andrews the Great Cambridge and a series of talks at St Michael Chester Sq.  His public ministry was finally only brought to a halt when he was ‘outed’ by stories in the Daily Telegraph in June and December 2019.

The second important event of February 2017 was the Channel 4 programme about John Smyth.  This event must have been a talking point among the attendees of the gathering as many present were the generation to have known him from attendance at the Iwerne camps as schoolboys or students.  The impact of the exposure of Smyth was undoubtedly significant on the conference.  Did those present argue for disclosure of what they knew or a cover-up?  I think we can take a guess.

This conference held in March 2017 had no overriding theme.  It was described as a meeting of ‘Jonathan Fletcher’s Group’.  These were the individuals, in other words, who had chosen to be present in order to interact with Fletcher.  With the help of Crockford online, which lists the training and careers of all the UK Anglican clergy, I was able to examine the profiles of all those present.  This allowed me to work out how 36 careers had, at some point, interacted with the powerful figure of Fletcher.  For over half the attendees, he was the one they looked up to at Iwerne camps; for others he was the one who had fostered a vocation into Christian ministry.  Every one of them in some way had a significant attachment to Fletcher which made them keen to be at this conference.  The age profile of those present was similar, and all had embarked on the path towards ordination at some point in the 70s and 80s.  Each had attended one of the main residential evangelical theological colleges in England.  Especially popular were Wycliffe Hall in Oxford and Ridley Hall in Cambridge.  What I appeared to be witnessing in this conference was a gathering of some of those who had fallen under Fletcher’s spell.  They were coming together to pay their homage to their mentor and patron.  Their ministries were in part inspired by the influence of Fletcher’s personal charisma.  There was, of course, a further loyalty, one to the theology, traditions and tribalism of the REFORM/Church Society networks. This they shared with their mentor.

Does the fact that there was this apparent private gathering of Anglican clergy to meet their highly respected, even if officially discredited, guru, really matter?   After all, these clergy might claim that they did not know anything about the Southwark ban.  That argument might work for many of those present, but for the fact that, in the room, there were three serving bishops.  One was Julian Henderson, the Bishop of Blackburn (coincidentally nominated by Fletcher for membership of Nobody’s Friends in 2016).  His recent comments on the CEEC video have been the cause of controversy.  The others were the Bishop of Plymouth, Nick McKinnel and the flying Bishop of Maidstone, Rod Thomas.  Another clergyman, Andy Lines, soon to be consecrated bishop by the American ACNA network, attended.  Of the rest there were some well-known names from the evangelical world.  The age-range of those attending was, as we have indicated, relatively narrow.  We may suggest that the loyalties reflected in the group date from the time when Fletcher had his maximum influence in the Church -the mid-70s up to the end of the 80s.  His hold over the evangelical world has still been strong since the 90s, but a new generation of leaders has begun to replace him.

A day visitor to the 2017 conference was the legendary Dick Lucas.  He had presided as Vicar over St Helen’s Bishopsgate for a generation.  Now in his 90s, Dick’s presence there helped, no doubt, to give the conference a sense of continuity with the past and possibly helping to bolster Fletcher’s own, now declining, influence in the REFORM world. 

As I mentioned in the previous piece in connection with Bishop Rod, there was something jarring and probably highly irregular about the direct consultations between a serving Bishop and a discredited clergyman.  Now that I discover that there was this further meeting attended by two other serving bishops, I am still more alarmed.  What should happen when a PTO is withdrawn for safeguarding reasons?  Although one would not expect a notice in the London Gazette to announce such a change of status, the whole point of taking away a PTO is to make the church safer. Are we to believe that bishops are ever kept in the dark over these matters?  If none of them knew, then the safeguarding system is dysfunctional to the point of being useless.  If they did know, that suggests a gung-ho attitude to safeguarding which makes each of the three a safeguarding risk.  Clergy and bishops have been suspended from duty for such failures.  Was their loyalty and desire to pay ‘homage’ to Fletcher greater than their desire to keep the church safe and protect the vulnerable?  I am not going to describe the activities attributed to Fletcher, but, suffice to say, he was and is considered to be a serious safeguarding risk.  We can allow, in the absence of other evidence, the ignorance of ordinary parish priests towards Fletcher’s behaviour.  But something is going very wrong if serving bishops are kept out of the loop (or deliberately exclude themselves) in such a serious affair. 

The very fact of a conference in 2017 presided over by Jonathan Fletcher in the presence of three serving C of E bishops makes a nonsense of the safeguarding protocols of the Church of England.  Bishop Rod Thomas, who was officially overseeing Fletcher, seems to have had no authority in the situation.  From what we can surmise he was behaving like a member of a Fletcher cult.  I use that word carefully, but it is the only word that allows me to describe the way that Fletcher kept people like +Rod in thrall to him over several decades.  From his days in Cambridge in the mid-70s to his thirty-year tenure at Emmanuel Wimbledon, Fletcher’s influence has been very strong in the Church.  With the investigation to be published by thirtyone:eight next year, we hope to understand more of the healthiness or otherwise of that ministry.  In the meantime, this blog will be questioning why the Church has seemed unable (unwilling?) to maintain any authority over a maverick and possibly dangerous ministry. 

A week or two back I wrote about the Dean of Christ Church, Martyn Percy, having to face concerted attacks from various directions.  In his case it was a cabal of dons seeking to remove him. They sought first to avail themselves of the statutes of the college to achieve their aims. When this did not work, the same group found that could attack their Dean by using the core group process administered by the C of E’s National Safeguarding Team.   Both of these attacks have failed, but there has followed yet another safeguarding allegation.  This is to be investigated by an independent safeguarding consultant.  As the college is apparently paying for this investigation, it is difficult to know whether independence can be completely preserved.  When it comes to deciding on the cause of justice, it is hard to see that an individual will ever find it easy to win, when a determined well-funded institutional opponent has decided to attack you.

In another part of the country a different but comparable confrontation between institutions and individuals is being played out.  A year ago, we carried an account written by a clergy wife, Kate, whose husband was being pressured to give up his job as a Vicar in a midlands diocese.   The original issue which according to the local Archdeacon ‘lacked specificity’ was raised formally to the level of a complaint under the Clergy Discipline Measure in November of 2017.  Whatever the precise complaints were, the CDM that addressed the parishioners’ complaints was investigated and dismissed in May 2018.

Kate and Mike’s story tells us something about the way that a relatively minor issue, which could probably have been resolved through the use of professional mediation, was allowed to escalate to involve numbers of people.  It also illustrates, as does the Percy case, serious dysfunctions of process and power that can take place within the church.  The ‘non-specific’ grumbling, starting in March 2017, took on a life of its own and escalated in several directions.   First the Vicar found the stress of the grumbling, which quickly turned into bullying, difficult to manage.  It reached the point where he had to take leave from parish duties.  In the second place the authorities in the local diocese and the patrons of the living became involved in overlapping ways.  This helped to keep the episode alive so that it continues to be a situation without any obvious resolution in sight.  The main players in the oversight of the parish, apart from the local diocese, are the patrons, the trustees of the Church Society (CS).  This group is responsible for the patronage of a cluster of parishes up and down the country who support the conservative evangelical branch of the Church.  These parishes are likely to hold a traditional conservative view of Scripture and take a hard-line view on the issues around human sexuality.  Many of these parishes also refuse the ministry of women as clergy.  Now that some dioceses have a female bishop, a conservative parish would look to Rod Thomas, the ‘flying’ bishop who oversees and supports parishes with a tradition of male-only headship.

Having two distinct, possibly competing, centres of oversight for this parish has made a solution to the problem far more complicated.  When it was clear that there was something to be addressed in the parish, the Archdeacon arranged in March 2017 to meet complainants and the Vicar. A meeting with PCC was later arranged for May when the Vicar’s family were away. It would appear that, quite early on in this process, the Archdeacon had decided to support the perspective of the complainants against the Vicar. One would have hoped that a degree of professional neutrality might have been observed, and that situations of this kind would seek the services of a professional mediator. What happened next was another second meeting of the PCC, timed to take place when Mike was away, and of which he was not informed. For this second meeting +Rod was invited to be present.   At this second meeting the partiality of the Archdeacon slipped and he began to hint how the PCC might ‘persuade’ the Vicar to move on.  This overt siding with the disgruntled group of parishioners which had obtained a strong voice on the PCC was maintained simultaneously with an attitude of friendly support to Mike and Kate.

Kate’s account of the events of 2017-2018 have been informed through her obtaining copies of emails and other forms of communication that were exchanged between +Rod, the Diocese and various senior members of the CS.  These members of the conservative evangelical establishment had an interest in the affair, having a stake through the power of the CS patronage.  These emails etc were provided after she made a subject access request in recent months.

From the point of view of process, we see another topsy-turvy situation developing.  In the first place, in noting how the Archdeacon behaved, we suspect that he wanted to take charge and possibly reclaim from the CS an influence over the parish on behalf of the diocese.  By inviting +Rod and keeping him in the communication loop, he was giving him a sense of importance. +Rod’s influence in this parish, in spite of his power of oversight, does not seem to have been very strong. He does not have the authority of a typical diocesan bishop and In many ways is more circumscribed than a parish priest.  Everything done in a parish under his oversight, has to pass through the local diocesan bishop first.  That is where the final power lies. In the second place, and this becomes clear in Kate’s examination of the requested emails etc, +Rod seemed very anxious to know the opinions and advice of senior churchmen in the CS constituency.  The tone of these emails, some of which I have seen, suggests that +Rod felt in no way a free agent to make decisions about what could happen in Mike’s congregation.  Thus the Archdeacon was effectively inviting, not one individual into the discussion, but the entire CS leadership cohort.  +Rod was in practice merely a spokesman for that group. Their advice would naturally be focusing, not specially on Mike and Kate’s welfare, but on maintaining their patronage power in this particular outpost of the CS empire.    

A further twist comes into this story.  +Rod is, as is widely known, an alumnus of Emmanuel Wimbledon, and received his call to priesthood while still a member of that congregation.  This brings him under the ongoing influence of his former mentor and Vicar, Jonathan Fletcher. The released correspondence makes it clear that Fletcher was party to the consultation process.  He also knew Mike and Kate personally through the Iwerne camps network.  By the time the emails and communications between +Rod, Jonathan Fletcher and other CS officials were flying around in mid 2017, Fletcher was already non-grata in the Church of England, having lost his PTO in February 2017.  William Taylor, the unofficial leader of the whole CS/REFORM/ReNew network claims only to have known about this in the early part of 2019.  We have to take this claim as factual, though it does stretch credulity.  But it is not credible that +Rod had not heard about the investigation of his mentor Fletcher and the removal of his PTO by the Southwark diocese at the time when it happened.  It means in effect that a bishop of the Church of England was seeking advice from a discredited clergyman as well as a parachurch organisation operating on the boundaries of the Church.  +Rod was, by the tone of the emails, at every point anxious to keep in favour with William Taylor and these other leaders in the closed world of the conservative network of the Church of England. 

Mike the Vicar and his wife Kate have had to face the juggernaut of two separate institutions trying to undermine them and remove them from their calling, their home and their livelihood.  To remind the reader, the original complaint by a parishioner against Mike through a CDM, whatever its precise nature, was eventually dismissed.  What we have left is a cluster of confused power dynamics.  This was brought about, first by an Archdeacon who was less than thorough in dealing with a pastoral rift between a Vicar and some of his flock.  Further, we catch a glimpse of some of the internal power politics of the conservative faction within the Church of England.  +Rod, who, as bishop. is nominally in charge, finds himself permanently beholden to two strongly inhibiting centres of power.   First, he has to work with the diocesan structures of the Church of England which limit severely what he can do.  He also is required to conform to the highly centralised and controlling power of the leaders of the conservative wing of the Church.  Lacking any real power, one is tempted to ask what a ‘flying’ bishop can ever hope to achieve?

 This sad episode affecting Mike and Kate and their family raises the corner of a curtain.  We see behind it displays of power struggles in the Church, and especially as they touch the world of conservative evangelicals in the Church of England.  The ongoing story of Mike and Kate is, in the end, a footnote to a much larger narrative.  But, by following their story, we are given hints at understanding this wider picture. Perhaps those of us who are not part of the conservative wing of the Church, need to wake up to understand what is really going on. We all need to have a clearer understanding of the nature of the struggle for power and influence in the Church of England which goes on behind closed doors.

by Janet Fife

There may be problems with some of the links in the glossary. If a link does not work, you can do a cut and paste and place the link in the search box. Apologies from the Editor whose technical savvy is limited.

Survivors and others who encounter the world of Church safeguarding find themselves in a maze of acronyms and organisations. Here’s my attempt to clarify the confusion (not least my own!), with particular reference to the Church of England. Readers are welcome to suggest additions and corrections in the comments below. Information on other denominations would be especially useful.

Authorised Listener

Some dioceses have an Authorised Listener scheme. An AL may be either a trained volunteer or a professional, and will listen supportively for a limited number of appointments.

Carlile Review

Lord Carlile’s review into the Church’s handling of a CSA complaint against George Bell, Bishop of Chichester 1929-58. Published in December 2017. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-12/Bishop%20George%20Bell%20-%20The%20Independent%20Review.pdf

Carter Review

Richard Carter was commissioned by Birmingham Diocese to review its handling of allegations against the Ven. Tom Walker. Completed in 2018 but never published; the survivor allowed to see a heavily redacted version only after signing an NDA.

CCPAS – Churches Child Protection Advisory Service

Now called Thirtyone:eight. See entry below.

CDM – Clergy Discipline Measure (Church of England)

1. A legal Measure passed by the General Synod in 2003, under which clergy can be disciplined for serious misconduct. For the terms of the Measure:  https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukcm/2003/3/contents 
2. Procedure for making a complaint against a member of the clergy: https://www.churchofengland.org/about/leadership-and-governance/legal-service/clergy-discipline Revision of the CDM is under way.

Chichester Reports

A series of reports into the management of abuse cases in Chichester Diocese: https://safeguarding.chichester.anglican.org/documents/category/reports/

Core Group

A multi-disciplinary group set up to consider a safeguarding allegation.

CSA – Child Sexual Abuse

DBS – Disclosure and Barring Service (formerly CRB)

A check of police records and government lists to ensure a person is not barred from working with children or at-risk adults,

DNSA – Deputy National Safeguarding Adviser

DSA – Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser.

The member of staff in each diocese who advises the bishop and clergy on safeguarding matters.

DSO – Diocesan Safeguarding Officer.

IICSA recommended that DSAs be given the power to overrule bishops, rather than merely advisory, and the job title be changed to DSO. Not yet implemented.

Gibb Report – An Abuse of Faith, The Independent Peter Ball Review

In 2016 Dame Moira Gibb was commissioned by the CofE to review its handling of allegations against Bishop Peter Ball.  The report was published in 2017. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/report-of-the-peter-ball-review-210617.pdf

Elliott Review

A 2015 review into the CofE’s handling of CSA allegations made against two prominent clergy.  The Church commissioned CCPAS who appointed Ian Elliott to carry it out. https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/Elliot%20Review%20Findings.pdf

IICSA – Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (in England and Wales)

A statutory Inquiry opened in 2015 to discover how institutions in England and Wales managed their duty of care to protect children from abuse. There have been 15 investigations, some still ongoing, and a series of hearings, which have now concluded. It also runs the Truth Project. Information on IICSA:  https://www.iicsa.org.uk

Reports into the Peter Ball case, Chichester Diocese, and the CofE:  https://www.iicsa.org.uk/investigations/investigation-into-failings-by-the-anglican-church

Report into the Catholic Church:  https://www.iicsa.org.uk/publications/investigation/roman-catholic-church

IPSS – Interim Pilot Support Scheme

A trial project for the planned redress scheme, to give practical support to survivors in ‘seriously distressed’ circumstances. Led by Jonathan Gibbs, the lead Bishop for Safeguarding. https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/overview/news-and-views/unanimous-support-archbishops-council-safeguarding-proposals

ISVA – Independent Sexual Violence Advisor. 

Some dioceses and many charities working with survivors have one or more ISVAs whose job it is to support the survivors. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-role-of-the-independent-sexual-violence-adviser-isva.

John Smyth Review – see Makin Review

LADO – Local Authority Designated Officer.

The person who manages safeguarding allegations made against those working with children, and advises on safeguarding matters.

MACSAS – Minister and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors

A support service run by survivors, for those who have been sexually abused as children or adults by members of the clergy. https://www.macsas.org.uk

Makin Review – the John Smyth Review

Investigation into the Church’s handling of allegations against John Smyth, being carried out by Keith Makin and Sarah Lawrence. Due to report in 2021. https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/overview/reviews-and-reports/john-smyth-review for the terms of the review

and http://survivingchurch.org/2019/09/18/keith-makin-and-the-smyth-review/  for comment.

NSA – National Safeguarding Adviser

NAPAC – National Association of People Abused in Childhood

Offers support to adult survivors of all kinds of childhood abuse and training for those who support survivors. https://napac.org.uk/what-napac-does/

NCI – National Church Institutions

The collective name for seven of the C of E’s central bodies. They are separate legal entities, so if submitting an SAR it’s necessary to know which one/s might have data on you. A separate SAR would be required for each.

Archbishops’ Council;

Bishopthorpe Palace;

Lambeth Palace;

Church Commissioners;

Central Services (HR, Finance & Resources, IT, Legal, Communications,                      Record Centre);

Pensions Board;

National Society for Promoting Religious Education.

NDA – Non Disclosure Agreement

Sometimes imposed on survivors as part of the terms of a settlement, or before they are allowed to read a review into their case. Not regarded as good practice, and now being phased out.

NSP – National Safeguarding Panel. Advises the CofE on safeguarding policy and strategy, and assess implementation. Panel members include an independent chair, representatives from the Methodist and Roman Catholic Churches, and three survivors.

Advises the CoE on safeguarding policy and strategy, and assesses how they are implemented. Works with the Methodist Church. The Panel has two survivor representatives.

NSSG – National Safeguarding Steering Group

Oversees the CofE’s national safeguarding, including the work of the NST; considers the advice of the NSP; considers reports of internal and external Reviews before publication, and monitors how recommendations are implemented; oversees the Church’s response to IICSA; reviews diocesan safeguarding audits and returns. Members are appointed by the Archbishops.  https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/NSSG%20Terms%20of%20Reference%20and%20Membership%20Nov%202017.pdf

NST – National Safeguarding Team

Develops and implements national policy; handles complex and high profile cases; commissions reviews; does national survivor support and engagement, co-ordinates independent diocesan safeguarding audits. https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/promoting-safer-church

NSWG – National Safeguarding Working Group

Provides administrative support for the NSSG.

PCR – Past Cases Review (Safeguarding)

The PCR was commissioned in 2007 and released its results in 2010, listing only 13 outstanding safeguarding cases nationally. The Singleton Review of the PCR was published in 2018. https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/report-handling-past-cases-review

PCR2 –  Past Cases Review version 2

A second review of past cases, with wider terms, is currently underway. https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/reviews-and-reports/past-cases-review-2/past-cases-review-2-faq

Policy and Practice Guidelines – see https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/policy-and-practice-guidance

PSA – Provincial Safeguarding Adviser (Lambeth)

Based in London, at the archbishop of Canterbury’s offices.  Deals with the southern dioceses of the C of E.

PSA – Provincial Safeguarding Adviser (Bishopthorpe)

Based in York, at the Archbishop of York’s offices.  Deals with the northern dioceses of the C of E.

PSO – Parish Safeguarding Officer

The person who leads safeguarding in a particular parish.

Review

Investigation and report into how a safeguarding case, or cases, has been handled. Sometimes called a Lessons Learned Review. For distinction between internal and independent reviews see here:  https://thirtyoneeight.org/news-and-events/publications/together-magazine/2020-winter/winter-2020/internal-or-independent/

Safe Spaces

A free and independent support service for survivors of any kind of abuse, run by Victim Support on behalf of the Church of England, the Church in Wales, and the Catholic Church of England and Wales. Launched September 2020. https://www.safespacesenglandandwales.org.uk

SAR – Subject Access Request

Under UK law we have a right to know what personal data organisations store. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) website gives advice on how to file an SAR. https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/your-right-to-get-copies-of-your-data/

SCIE – Social Care Institute for Excellence

A charity specialising in safeguarding, which works with churches and other bodies to conduct surveys and carry out reviews. https://www.scie.org.uk/safeguarding

Shemmings Report

A report of the review by David and Yvonne Shemmings into safeguarding failures in Chichester Diocese. https://safeguarding.chichester.anglican.org/documents/shemmings-report/

Singleton Report

Sir Roger Singleton’s review of the Past Cases Review, published 2018. https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/report-handling-past-cases-review

SRG – Survivors Reference Group

Organise safeguarding presentations to General Synod, contribute to policy, and have input into some appointments.

Survivors Voices

Works to engage the skills and expertise of survivors to improve the response to abuse. Run by and for survivors and their supporters. https://survivorsvoices.org

Thirtyone:eight – formerly CCPAS

An independent Christian safeguarding charity providing a range of support to churches and organisations, including training, reviews, and DBS service. https://thirtyoneeight.org

Truth Project

IICSA project n which survivors of CSA are invited to share their experiences and be listened to respectfully. It concludes in 2021. https://www.truthproject.org.uk/i-will-be-heard

Whitsey Review – A Betrayal of Trust

Review by David Pearl and Kate Wood into Chester Diocese’s handling of CSA allegations against Victor Whitsey, Bishop of Chester 1974-81. Published in October 2020 but withdrawn in November due to a legal issue. It will be re-issued in due course. https://www.churchofengland.org/news-and-media/news-and-statements/review-bishop-whitsey

Smyth’s Bystanders and Enablers

.   

When we teach a child about right and wrong, we tend to simplify the lesson.  One action is wrong and to be avoided; the other, the good option, is what we should do.  Some people carry this simple narrative about morality right into adulthood.  The binary world of black-white, right and wrong which sufficed for the child’s understanding of the world, is expected to do service for the adult.  By this time, most of us are immersed in a sea of complexity and ambiguity.  The binary answers are no longer adequate. 

The world, beyond the binary one of childhood, inconveniently, contains many situations possessing a distinct tone of grey.  We are forced constantly to apply our judgement and experience rather than operate according to the rules of a simplistic morality.  Some professions recognise the problem and strain of having to make complex decisions which can have life-changing outcomes.  They try to provide their members with procedures or protocols for every conceivable scenario.  The message is this:  If you follow the correct procedure, the professional standards body will always support you if things go wrong.  This system of relieving professional workers of potential responsibility works well in professions like the army, social work or medicine.  There are, however, other professions which cannot ever operate in this way.  Those who work for the Church, for example, find that they must constantly negotiate in a world of grey realities.  To find their way forward, they have only their judgement and experience.  A typical vicar will have no one to turn to when such difficult decisions must be made.  All the possible choices may sometimes have poor outcomes.  If choices are wrong, he/she will just hope that the results are not so devastating that someone slaps a CDM on them.  Making a difficult decision in a world of grey realities is stressful.  Would it not be wonderful if the right decision was always obvious?  Sadly, we know that we must deal with the least bad option among several alternatives.   

Beyond the world of difficult decision making faced by the clergy, is another world, even further away from the simple reassuring black-white certainties of childhood.  This world we may call the looking-glass world of safeguarding.  It is a looking-glass world because we find that many decisions somehow seem back to front.   For reasons that are hard to understand, the people who should be at the centre of concern and care, the survivors/victims, find themselves sometimes treated as though they are the guilty ones.  They entered the complaints process to find that the safeguarding system has somehow reversed the process to make them the ones under cross-examination.  The ongoing saga of Martyn Percy is a case in point.  As an individual he was subject to an expensive legal process by a group of vindictive colleagues.  Having negotiated that, after being found innocent by a retired judge, he then went on to experience the weight of the Church’s core group process.  Somehow his accusers had manipulated the system so that he was placed in the role of a perpetrator.  Thus, over a period of two years, Martyn had to stand up to two well-funded institutions trying to crush him.  Anyone looking on would quickly conclude that Martyn is the victim in this case.  But the system of core groups and safeguarding as practised by the Church of England has managed to convince itself that Martyn is somehow a perpetrator.  Welcome to the world of Alice Through the Looking-Glass. 

It is very hard indeed to navigate a clear path in the world of upside-down logic and Kafkaesque process that we find in the Church’s safeguarding processes.  I heard (it may be hearsay) that there are over a hundred outstanding cases for the core group process to deliberate on, following Melissa Caslake’s departure.  Somewhere in Church House, someone is sitting with a pile of files, trying to work out how they are going to find dozens of people of goodwill to serve on all these groups.  Are there that many people prepared to give up precious time to work out how to direct justice into this flagging (and failing) structure? 

We are suggesting that the upside-down ‘system’ of church safeguarding can cause havoc for the well-being of essentially good individuals.  Equally, exploitative individuals seem to be able to work the system and escape accountability for decades.  The secret for escaping exposure in church settings is first to be part of powerful networks of support.  These may be churchmanship fellowships, dining clubs or college alumni groups.  If your network includes a bishop, a church legal officer or an Archdeacon, that will be able probably to foul up any legal process that is being mounted against you by the church.  This avoidance process came out at the ICSA hearing when it was shown how Peter Ball used his levers of support to fight off and evade the structures of church justice for two decades.  Had it not been for the determined work of the police force, it is likely that Ball might have retained his reputation intact for the rest of his life.   

One of the important tasks involved in looking at the career of credibly accused but influential individuals, is the recognition of the role of enablers and bystanders.  Not everyone of the ‘supporting cast’ deserves equal blame or guilt. Nevertheless, we must impute some level of guilt on these bystanders.   Those very close to the perpetrator are a dark colour of grey while others, further away from the action, are only mildly touched with the blackness of an evil manipulating abuser. 

Looking at the example of John Smyth’s activities in England and Africa we can see the way evil was spread among his supporters.  The contentious part of the story is the one that Keith Makin is piecing together. Who knew what and when?   This blog does not aim to bring up once again the names of those who were caught up in this narrative.  Clearly there were some who knew enough to have been potentially able to have stopped the abuse but did not.  They carry the most guilt in the story other than what Smyth himself acquired.  Most of these, who are coloured dark grey, are now dead.  Forty years have now passed since the events in the Winchester garden shed. 

A larger group belong to the category of bystanders. This group may have suspected that something was wrong, but they failed to speak of it.  Many of these bystanders were very young at the time and thus susceptible to a culture of hero-worship of their charismatic Iwerne leaders.  Can we really attribute guilt to this group, mesmerised, seduced even, by the charms of the leadership at Iwerne?. 

The novel the Go-Between begins with the memorable sentence: ‘The past is a foreign country’.  Even those of us who were adults 40 years ago can forget how attitudes have subtly changed over the intervening period in the understanding of sexuality.  Few people then discussed the issues around gay sexual activity, and it was certainly not a cause that embroiled large numbers of people.  But there is one document on the topic that was written in 1991 but not published till 2012 called The Osborne Report.  It is salutary to read the report and see in it the attitudes and assumptions of thirty years ago.  We can realise that much has changed. In the report there is an extraordinary section which discusses the way that clergy guilty of paedophilic behaviour should be treated.  The document makes no recommendations for the care of victims.  Worse still is the suggestion that perpetrators might be forcibly moved on to a new post as a way of dealing with their offence.  I mention this passage merely as a way of reminding the reader that attitudes in 1982 to the homoerotic violence practised by Smyth would have been different.   When a church culture tends towards tolerance, we should be aware of that the way that this impacted on the very young people attending Iwerne camps.  They may have failed to understand the significance of what was going on around them.  The guilt of these bystanders, particularly for those who were very young, was at the time, not great. 

Around 2012 there was a minor revolution in attitudes about child sexual abuse when the behaviour of Jimmy Savile became known after his death in 2011. It was a significant wake-up call for all institutions given the responsibility of caring for children.  Sexual abuse of the young was now acknowledged as happening, even though it had been going on in secret for decades.  Perhaps the group that were initially most affected by the Savile revelations were abuse victims themselves.  They suddenly had a voice.  They knew that they would now be listened to and be believed. At the same time, we might have hoped that those uneasy bystanders of Smyth’s crimes might have sought the relief of telling what they knew.   After a further eight years of knowing that it was important to share openly what they knew, the status of these silent bystanders has changed from innocence to serious guilt.  They should have been first in the queue to tell all that they knew of Smyth’s manipulations.  No, this group have largely chosen the path of tribal loyalty to a network of other colluders.  This choice to ignore conscience and accept guilt will seriously impact on their integrity.  No names are mentioned here, but many people in the Church know the identity of these non-cooperating bystanders.   

When the thirtyone:eight report on Jonathan Fletcher and the Makin report on Smyth appear next year, I, for one, will be looking for evidence that at least some of the colluders and bystanders have come forward.  Failure to speak and reveal the truth is a failure to acknowledge guilt.   An inability either to admit guilt or to deal with it, is for me first-hand evidence that many who emphasise the preaching of the Gospel have not really understood it at all.  I listen to the first words of Jesus in Mark,  Metanoeite, turn around with your mind, repent.  That repentance is a prerequisite of accessing the Good News or Gospel of Jesus Christ.  

There was an interesting story in the paper today (Sunday) discussing the impact of the programme, The Crown. Apparently there has been a survey of public opinion about attitudes of the British general public towards the Royal Family among those who have seen this series. Although, for the purposes of a good fictional story line, the Crown showed the Royal family sometimes in a poor light, public attitudes towards them have not been changed in a negative direction.  It was thought that the portrayal of an adulterous Prince of Wales might cause damage to his reputation.  In fact, the opposite seems to be true.  Overall, 35% of those watching the series had begun to see the Royal Family in a better light.  Only 5% had allowed the programme to make them think of the family less favourably.  It seems that institutions like the Royals can survive criticism, if those looking on feel that they have been allowed a better view of what is going on behind the curtain.  Many human frailties can be forgiven and tolerated, when the observers feels that he/she is being given something like a frank disclosure.  The Crown may be to a large extent a fictional reconstruction, but it has given the viewer a sense of understanding the human foibles of this privileged group of people.  Most behaviour, short of actual criminality, will be forgiven by most people.  The more we feel we understand, the greater seems our capacity to forgive. 

As I thought about public attitudes towards a major institution in our society, like the Royal Family, I compared it in my mind to another story that appeared in the Church Times on Friday.  This published the results of the MORI Veracity Index for 2020.   This poll asked the man or woman in the street which professional person was most likely to tell the truth.  The rate for those expecting truthfulness from the clergy has apparently fallen to a mere 54%.  This score has fallen by 9 points in the last year alone and by 29 percentage points since 1983.   We can only speculate about the reasons for this spectacular collapse of trust.  It is likely to have had something to do with the endless cycle of scandals over the abuse of children in the past ten years.   But, whatever the reason, the current situation appears to be reaching a point where many clergy will no longer feel comfortable wearing clerical attire in a public place.   That indeed, may already have happened in some places.  If true, it a sad reflection for the Church that attitudes have now become so negative.  Whatever the reason, it is tragic reality that clergy are being placed in a zone of being thought unreliable and possibly untrustworthy. 

These two surveys need to be held alongside one another because there are some further lessons to be extracted.  Two solid British institutions are revealed to be beset by human frailty and failure.  In one case public opinion towards them is in the process of recovery with an increase of affection and esteem.  In the other case, public respect appears to be on the decline.  Why is there this difference?  There is, I believe, a simple explanation.  The attitude of people towards institutions is not especially affected by moral failing unless they belong to the most toxic categories.  What matters is the way those institutions deal with the failings.  Any attempt to hide, to cover-up and to pretend will be seen for what it is – hypocrisy.   Here hypocrisy is pretending to uphold one standard of behaviour while all the time behaving in another.  If the scandal of abuse against children and the vulnerable had really been about a few bad apples, the general public would by now have forgiven the church institution and possibly moved on.  The things that have upset countless people have been the cover-ups, the handwringing and the apparent indifference of people in authority in the Church.   There has been little readiness to show love and compassion for the victims/survivors.  Few people have taken note of the details of the abuses, as do the readers of this blog.  But the public have been left with a sense that there are many tales of unfinished business.  There is always a feeling that many church people have been far too concerned to keep the show on the road than taking radical steps to help and heal the many who have been wounded or broken by this apparent epidemic of abuse.  It is this sense of the Church in disarray, not knowing what to do to protect children that has been so damaging.  Of course, the Church has made enormous progress in this area of safeguarding.  But as the public relations experts fully recognise, it is not what the facts are in a particular situation that count; it is what impression is left after a period of negative publicity.  The overall impression is negative and that is what urgently needs repair.   We want a situation where the clergy can walk the streets everywhere without fear of insult.   

As I was thinking about this apparent decline in the reputation of the Church of England in society, I was drawn to remember the passage in Matthew 23 about religious people and institutions being likened to whited sepulchres. This is a passage describing how, on the outside, everything may seem beautiful, but on the inside, there is filth and decomposing human remains.  It is as though the general public, who used to see only fine beautiful buildings and honourable people, have been afforded a glimpse of something dark and not very wholesome through a crack in the white façade. Something rotten and corrupt is showing through the crack.  

In the comments on Thinking Anglicans about the resignation of Melissa Caslake, there was a quote given.  ‘Half of the leadership of the Church of England knows that it needs to change to survive, but the other half feels that survival depends on preventing change at all costs.’    The evidence suggests that if public perception of the Church is changing as fast as it is, then change becomes a life-death matter for the institution. To use the vivid picture language of Jesus, if the whited sepulchre is cracked open at one end, then all the whitewash will be ignored.  The only thing visible will be the bones. The Royal Family has, metaphorically speaking, been cracked open but survived.  They all seem to be (apart from Prince Andrew) on their way to recovery in people’s estimation. People it seems, can cope with frailty and failure.  But they cannot accept dishonesty and hypocrisy.  

Most of us have experienced the devastating effect of secrets within a family. In the past there were sometimes extra children born to a family after it seemed complete.  Then, years later, it was discovered that the youngest child was in fact the daughter or son of a teenage daughter. No one was prepared to talk about the situation but the damage to the identity of the child born out of wedlock could be enormous. I am sure that most of my readers will recall some secret in their own family which caused damage because of silence. Scandal is thought to be dangerous and damaging. What is far worse is a scandal never admitted. They are like festering wounds.  From a human point of view, people are far readier to cope with lapses in human behaviour than we think.  Obviously, there are, even now, activities which are hard to forgive or let go. I am thinking of such crimes as gross cruelty to a child or abuse of some kind. But most of the scandals that we heard about, which thought to bring disgrace on a family, did not come into this category. Secrets when brought into the light of day normally do not seem so terrifying and will, for most people, incur understanding and forgiveness. 

There is a way forward for the Church.  It needs to decide on a path of openness and genuine remorse for its past failings.  If it takes the other path of commissioning a new coat of whitewash every time there is a scandal, public trust and respect for the Church will continue to decline.  Human beings generally respond well to a narrative which begins: ‘We got it wrong. We made terrible mistakes and we ask for your understanding and forgiveness.’ If the Church over a period of years could become the institution which is prepared, never to cover up but to own up, then perhaps people in our society would learn to trust it more. That terrible loss of trust that has been sustained over the past thirty years might be reversed. I do not see this process beginning easily, unless we have someone of real leadership quality prepared to take such change forward.  We arrive back at a place which we have frequently visited.  We come back to imploring the Church and its leaders to embrace integrity, truth and honesty and put away the falsity of thinking that they can continue to manipulate, through public relations techniques, the reputation of the Church as they have done over the past years. 

   By Janet Fife

Last week our two Archbishops and the lead bishop in safeguarding, Jonathan Gibb, met on Zoom with a group of survivors of church abuse. There were 15 or so survivors and a chaplain, Rosie Harper, who was there to support us. The meeting was organised and chaired by Andrew Graystone, whose idea it was.  The episcopal contingent came in casual open-neck shirts and told us to call them, respectively, Justin, Stephen, and Jonathan. I can’t reveal what anyone said, but it was a useful start to what we hope will be a series of conversations.

That discussion has led me to reflect further on what it means for the Church to help survivors. What kind of assistance do we need? I think many of our bishops want to get this right and don’t know how. Perhaps some are genuinely puzzled that survivors aren’t grateful for what is offered, while survivors complain of being asked to rubber-stamp plans over which we haven’t been consulted.

The BBC TV programme Saving Lives at Sea records real-life rescues carried out by the Coastguard and the RNLI. I’ve been thinking of the way they tackle these rescues, and pondering what it could teach the Church.

First, the rescuers know that every ‘shout’ (as a callout is termed) is different.  So the first thing they do, while dropping everything to answer the call, is to gain as much information as they can about the situation. Is it a swimmer in difficulty? Walkers stranded at the base of a cliff and cut off by a rising tide? A boat in trouble? If the latter, do they have engine power and emergency equipment? And, in every case:  how many people are there? age, condition, experience?

Second, while already on their way to the scene of the emergency they are devising a strategy for tackling the problem. On arrival and throughout the rescue, they are constantly re-assessing the situation, and adjusting their plan if need be.

Third, on arrival at the scene they communicate with the casualties, offering reassurance and gaining more information.  They assess the ability of the casualties to assist in their own rescue. If there’s a boat in trouble, for instance, they will rely on its crew’s skill to make fast a rope, steer while being towed, or time the jump from the ailing craft to the lifeboat.

Finally, of course, they get the casualties to a safe harbour, where any further needs can be met or they can go safely on their way.

The RNLI and the Coastguard don’t judge the victims of whatever misfortune has occurred. Over and over we hear them saying:  ‘The sea is unpredictable. It can be dangerous. This could happen to any of us.’

The principles we see operating in Saving Lives at Sea are:

1. respond immediately
2. gain accurate information about the casualties’ situation
3. have a clear strategy, but be prepared to adapt it to the circumstances
4. maintain good communication with the casualties, within the team, and with base
5. don’t blame the victims, but get them to a place where they can carry on with their lives.

The Church of England’s attempts to ‘rescue’ survivors don’t seem to follow this model. The response is painfully slow, an assessment of the individual’s situation inadequate or completely lacking, and communication poor to non-existent. So, metaphorically, a drowning person may be told to swim to the lifeboat, or an experienced skipper’s knowledge of her boat disregarded. No wonder the results aren’t good. The casualties will be no better off – or in the worst cases, dead.

The announcement that the Church of England’s first full-time Director of Safeguarding is leaving after only 18 months in the job has made it more clear than ever that the Church of England’s safeguarding is in dire straits.

I’ve had no dealings with Melissa Caslake myself, but I know she’s held in high regard by survivors, and by Justin Humphreys of the safeguarding charity thirtyone:eight. Ms. Caslake has been reforming the National Safeguarding Team and attempting to bring a more professional approach to the Church’s safeguarding.

According to the Daily Telegraph, which broke the story:

‘A source said: “Half of the leadership of the Church of England knows that it needs to change to survive, but the other half feels that survival depends on preventing change at all costs.” 

“Melissa Caslake is a dedicated and competent safeguarding professional. She was brought in to reform the church’s safeguarding practice. She wouldn’t be leaving unless she felt that task had become impossible. Perhaps she has discovered what many victims know from bitter experience – that the church is simply too complex, too defensive, and too self-absorbed to face up to its own cruelty.”’

A statement from survivors who have worked with her said, in part:

‘We note that she came from a Local Authority context and returns to a similar position where she will have clear unambiguous roles, rules, and structures, none of which currently exist within the Church of England in general and Church House in particular. Until those issues are sorted out the position of Director of Safeguarding is virtually impossible to do with integrity, and we don’t blame Melissa for leaving whilst hers is still intact.’

Ms. Caslake is only the most senior of a number of highly skilled and experienced safeguarding personnel who have taken up posts in the Church, only to leave in despair after finding themselves unable to work to good  professional standards. The old wineskin can’t take the new wine.

Archbishops Justin and Stephen realise that major change is needed and that’s a good start. But changing our whole model of handling safeguarding and relating to survivors will require not only goodwill and fresh thinking on the part of Justin, Stephen, and Jonathan, but also the willing and creative cooperation of their fellow bishops, Archbishops’ Council, General Synod, and the Church’s civil servants. They – we – need firstly the humility to admit that we have failed God and the people we’re called to serve.

There are far too many people at all levels in the Church, lay and ordained, who have forgotten that our core mission is to embody God’s love for the world.   Many of us have become focussed instead on preserving our particular denomination as an institution, with its buildings, traditions, and procedures. Some are focussed on furthering their own tradition or career within the organisation.

It’s natural to love our buildings, traditions, and even our culture. They give us identity and a sense of belonging, and have often been a source of strength and comfort in difficult times. But they mustn’t be allowed to take the place of God, or to become confused with our core mission.  That would be like the RNLI forgetting that its purpose is to save lives at sea.

So, how are we to proceed? If people who know about safeguarding and are good at it can’t work within our systems, we must change our systems. This may mean that Church civil servants who can’t or won’t adapt will have to be moved to jobs where they can’t interfere with safeguarding personnel. It may mean we outsource safeguarding to an independent authority. Either way, there will have to be major changes.

I have two other suggestions. The first is that a Church of England Survivors’ Association be set up. This could provide information and news updates and advise survivors on the Church’s Byzantine procedures. It could also relay survivors’ views to the Church and do so without their names appearing. It might be able to provide the Church with the names of survivors with professional expertise who willing to be consulted. The Church is good at de-skilling people and often assumes survivors have nothing to offer. (A cathedral dean once said to me, ‘That kind of person won’t come here.’ He was wrong.) In fact many survivors are over-achievers and leaders in their field. Crucially, such a survivors’ association would be a body they could choose to join, and hopefully would provide a sense of belonging and of agency.

Secondly, the Church needs to place pastoral care at the heart of its ministry. Ordinands should be selected for pastoral aptitude and trained in pastoral skills. This didn’t happen much in my own day, and it’s worse now. Projects and management have come to dominate over pastoral care, and clergy who are pastoral often feel devalued by their superiors.  Regular readers of Surviving Church will be well aware of clergy who have behaved in a very unpastoral manner and seriously failed their flocks. All clergy and Readers already in post should take a Mental Health First Aid course. This will at least give them a grounding in the most common mental health crises, how to. Identify what is happening,  and where to refer on.

Survivors need our help, and if we don’t work with them we will have failed our calling as a Church.  

I found myself this morning reading material that I had written six months ago about Core Groups and the work of the National Safeguarding Team.  This was a way of trying to grasp some of the implications of the resignation of Melissa Caslake as head of the National Safeguarding Team.  To say that this resignation is likely to cause problems, is an understatement.  Anyone who has followed the work of the NST since its foundation in 2015 will know that it has been beset by problems.  The first NST under the leadership of Graham Tilby, I shall call NST1.   NST1, as I complained in this blog, brought together, to judge from its appointees, social workers and those skilled in managing process.  There was not a single person whose primary qualification was pastoral or psychotherapeutic.  Any survivor/victims who got close the workings of the old NST structure seemed likely to be burnt by the experience.  They found there nothing in the way of understanding and pastoral sensitivity.  Everything I heard about its workings, suggested that NST1 was almost totally geared to the preservation of church reputation and limiting financial liability by the central Church of England. 

The IICSA process took a long look at NST1 and all the other efforts by the Church to manage its safeguarding processes.  For reasons that I am not knowledgeable enough to spell out in detail, the House of Bishops and the other leaders operating out of Church House decided to reform the old NST and appoint a new head.  This followed a brief interim period under Sir Roger Singleton.  Effectively the Team became a new body as, under the leadership of Melissa Caslake, all the old employees of NST1 moved on.  In the 15 months since her appointment the new body that we shall call NST2 has appeared.  To say that this body has had teething problems is probably an understatement.  I do not claim inside knowledge but there were from the start two glaring problems which show no sign of having been resolved.  Let us consider each in turn.

The first problem for Caslake was the massive change of culture that she was entering into.  The Church is not like any other organisation that she would have been used to, like a local authority operating child protection procedures.  The Church before 2015 was, relatively speaking, in the dark ages over safeguarding.  It seemed to be making up many of its rules as it went along.  This provisionality about processes seems to have continued to this day.   This would likely have caused massive frustration for a new head like Caslake, as she tried to stamp the new NST2 with fresh professional standards of behaviour and practice.  It was not just that the Church is not like a local authority in terms of practice.  Caslake would also have had to cope with numerous ‘Spanish customs’.    The structures of power in the Church seem, even at a distance, immensely complex and confusing.  Caslake’s past would not have prepared her for all the political shenanigans operating in Church House and elsewhere.  Can you imagine an exam question for an undergraduate which goes something like this?  At the heart of the Church of England are three centres of power.  Which commands the greatest influence?  The civil servants at Church House, the Archbishops’ Council or General Synod?  The rogue answer might point out that the Communications Department and the firms of Church lawyers and reputation managers were actually the ones in charge!

A second problem for Caslake has been the difficulty of building up a team with background knowledge of all the cases from the past, combined with appropriate skills.   A full collection of background papers would use up several acres of woodland.  To find people who are even slightly acquainted with all this material is fairly remote.  Working on the NS2 team without such knowledge will need a solid six months of reading files to put right.  The existing experts on all this material are, of course, the survivors.  They have all been living with this material for years.  On a practical level, this fact is why survivors should always be included in future inquiries and investigations.  They have detailed understanding of the history, the psychology and the politics of each of these cases. 

Melissa Caslake’s resignation is a serious blow for the new NST2 which she has helped to build up since her appointment in August of last year.  She has given the impression of being a strong decisive leader.  With her departure, there will be a void and possibly a collapse of morale among those who have been working with her as part of the team.  There are numerous ongoing cases and active core group processes.  It is hard to see how they will be kept going effectively after her departure.  We wish her well, but we can guess from the hints that have been given, that she was trying to do an impossible job.  To say that working for the Church is hard, is a massive understatement.

 I cannot claim that I have seen all the implications of this story.  One thing I discern is that there seems to be a lack of good communication between the bishops and those working in Church House.   The left hand does not seem to know what the right is doing.  One good outcome might be if the Church authorities (whoever they are!) saw this resignation as implying there is an urgent need for safeguarding to be taken right out of Church influence and control.  It needs to be placed firmly into the hands of an independent body.  I suspect that, at the heart of the problem, there are personalities, power struggles and internal church politics which have, between them, made this resignation inevitable.  The fact that there is, at the time of writing, no official press release on the topic suggests that the authorities at Church House were not expecting this blow.  It is still not too late for the Church to go in a new direction in this area of activity.  Meanwhile Surviving Church sends to Melissa very best wishes for the future and, based on what we know or surmise, say simply: ‘We understand’.

I cannot be the only person trying to puzzle a way through the divisions that exist in the Anglican Communion at present.  As I have said several times before, the main topic of the debate, issues around sexuality, is a deeply contentious one, one that I draw back from involvement in.  This is partly because I do not believe that I have anything to add to the passion and complexity of the issues in this debate.  The other more important reason is that I see the fundamental issue as going far deeper than our opinions and beliefs about human sexuality.  In simple terms I see the current divisions within Anglicanism as being closely bound up with the culture wars being fought and paid for by enormously powerful and wealthy conservative forces in the States.  These right-wing interests hope to take control of society on behalf of a religiously infused nationalism in America and across the world.  Liberal thinking in politics or religion is a threat to that bid for power.   

Our Anglican debates are probably a mere side-show within this larger picture, but these lobby groups have stirred up enormous passion in these discussions about sexuality.  Thirty years ago, the LGBT debate was a non-issue.   It certainly was nowhere thought to be a defining measure of who was or who was not a Christian.  One reading of Anglican history suggests that the deliberate ramping up of this issue was orchestrated by a group of well-funded conservative Anglicans.  They met in Kuala Lumpur in February 1997.   They seem to have made a deliberate decision to put the same sex issue to the fore and ensure that it was a key item for discussion at Lambeth 1998.  A hitherto minor point of disagreement was thus weaponised and turned into a means of uniting Anglican conservatives together in their bid to become the dominant faction in the Communion. 

The current thinking by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York seems to be a wish that the different factions in the Anglican Communion and the Church of England might move towards a situation of gracious stalemate.  They seem to be currently saying, ‘we cannot agree on this matter.  At least let us agree to disagree and get on with other more important things like helping the world to avoid destroying itself and enable people to find God, especially the young’.  Most of us would agree with such a sentiment and wonder why, instead of the costly and debilitating effort involved in fighting this culture war, the contenders cannot agree to a truce.  But, as we know, there seems little sign that the successors of those who plotted at Kuala Lumpur are ready to pull back.  The war does not seem destined to stop without one side surrendering and allowing the other to obtain power over the whole.  If the debate is ultimately about power rather than sex, then we cannot expect it to be easily resolved.

As I indicated at the beginning, I do not propose to weigh up the arguments on either side of the divide.  I have clear sympathy for those who wish the Anglican Communion not to be taken over and controlled by the same right-wing ideologies that have been on show in America under Trump.  My concern in this blog is to try to unearth the causes as to why the two sides debating seem to be unable at times even to share a common discourse.   For this we need to go back a stage in terms of human psychology.  Before anyone is able to argue for truth, reality and freedom in a debate, they have a unique personal history and development.  Reason is built on pre-reason.  Before reason and proper functioning rationality emerged in each of us, there were a cluster of child-centred passions, desires, frustrations and the hope for instant gratification.  Out of this chaos of an unformed personality, there eventually appeared the rational person with thought-out convictions. The connection between the rational adult and the irrational feelings of the child may, however, be closer that we might want to admit. 

Every time we utter an opinion which we believe to be a rationally thought out and coherent point of view, we need to ask ourself.  To what extent are we ever truly independent in our ideas?   How far do the things we say and think reflect the jumble of emotions and feelings we have had as well as the people to whom we have been exposed over the decades right back to infancy?

I want to continue our reflection on the way we come to support a well thought-out and rational opinion on difficult issues, like the gay question, by looking at the work of Abraham Maslow.  Maslow explained in an illuminating way how human beings are motivated to behave in certain ways because of a ‘hierarchy of needs’.   These range from the physiological (food, warmth and rest) to social needs and others reflecting the human capacity for self-transcendence.  I want to suggest that strongly held beliefs and opinions reflect and are intertwined with these various needs that inevitably influence day to day human functioning.  Let me explain.

At the bottom of Maslow’s pyramid are some needs that have to be met for our physical survival.  If our parents had not provided for these basic needs, we would have died.  There is then another cluster of needs that provide for our social development.  A child left without interaction, touch and mental stimulus may survive in a physical sense, but, like many Romanian orphans, he/she will be stunted and handicapped, mentally and emotionally.  Beyond touch and proper stimulus is the need for attachment and sense of safety.  Depriving any child of these things will probably create, then and into adulthood, compensatory behaviours.  These represent a desperate need to receive what is their birth-right.  Feeling safe and properly attached to others are among the experiences that everyone needs and deserves, enabling him/her to grow up as a balanced human being.

The need to feel safe is one of the basic requirements for all human beings. Maslow’s theory predicts that every child and every adult will reach out to seek safety when they sense its absence.  When very young we looked to parents to provide for our safety but as we got older, we had increasingly to take responsibility for our own safety needs.  Wise parents are constantly reassuring their offspring that they are safe.  There are rituals for doing this, like night-time ‘tucking children up’.  This can be enormously helpful in learning to deal with childhood fears, like that of darkness. When fears are overcome the child will possess a secure platform from which to explore the world.  As adults, we also find that there is an instinctive mechanism inside us which sets up a certain tension and anxiety whenever we feel unsafe.  We then strain with our whole being to remove that uncertainty and fear.  Prayers and rituals of protection can play a large in the religious observance of many.  

Among other Maslow needs identified in the hierarchy, is belonging.  As with safety, this word points to a major element in religious language and practice.  To belong, to be part of something bigger than ourselves, is what makes the religious quest attractive.  It also resonates with and runs alongside our need to be safe.  People in church environments are taught to seek and receive ‘salvation’.  This is the promise of God-given safety which will carry us through this life and into the stage beyond death.  Identifying the way that the beliefs and convictions that we hold resonate with the needs identified by Maslow is a useful thing to do. Having identified primal and pre-rational facets in our religious observance, it becomes easier to understand how religious arguments do not normally reflect pure logic and reason.  Belonging and being safe are among the primal needs which belong to both our religious and social identities.  They exist long before we articulate religious beliefs or argue doctrinal positions with others

One idea that has come to the fore once again, particularly in view of the impasse between the various factions on the LGBT issue, is the Indaba idea from Africa.  This requires all parties in a disagreement to sit with each other to explore, at a deep level, what is really going on in a debate or conflict.  I am no expert in the Indaba process, but it seems that it could be done in a way that draws on this Maslow insight about primal needs. I have suggested that it is an interweaving of rational and pre-rational processes that together has created our strongly held convictions.  Getting in touch with the primal needs that Maslow identifies in every human being, clearly takes time. We might in the process learn to understand ourselves and others better. Common sense tells us that neglect of social needs in a small child might lead to a fascination with hell, salvation and eternal punishment.  Also, we suspect that an expressed need to dominate and control, which is so pervasive in some areas of church life, may come from a failure to have had other social needs met in an individual’s past.  Clearly the exploration of these layers of need in each of us would require huge amounts of time, combined with trust and a readiness to explore our deeper vulnerabilities.  That would be Indaba++.  But we desperately need new initiatives to replace the non-comprehending failures of communication exemplified in the recent videos from Christian Concern and CEEC.   The Church of England is on a trajectory to fragmentation and even destruction because human beings have hidden behind contradictory and irreconcilable propositions.  There is a crisis, and we need to do something urgently to resolve it.  This will include examining our vulnerabilities and seeing how unmet needs may have created serious blockages in our ability to understand and embrace the reality of another human being and their opinions.