The revelations about David Cameron working for a private finance company, where standards of ethics were not of the highest, have reminded us of the Nolan Principles. These were formulated in 1995 by Lord Nolan and were offered as a statement of what was expected on those who accepted posts in government and public life. The press and opposition politicians have been revisiting these seven principals. They want to remind their audiences of the way that those in government, from the Prime Minister downwards, sometimes appear to be guilty of serious ethical lapses while carrying out their public duties. While it is not my intention here to get involved in making judgments about the behaviour of politicians and senior civil servants, I can, for the purposes of this article, remind my readers of the seven words that sum up the Nolan Principles. They are respectively Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership.
These seven principles of conduct in public life could, of course, merit a separate blog for each of them. My purpose in listing them is to remind the reader that values and principles within institutions matter. We have the right to expect that the people who represent us in public life and manage the country on our behalf follow ethical guidelines. In listing these seven principles of public life, I am aware that there is no equivalent list in church life. We do not have a statement that sets out the ethical basis for the way that, for example, church legal protocols are managed. Is the principle of openness ever compatible with Non-Disclosure Agreements that are sometimes part of legal cases connected with abuse awards? Is not the obsessive secrecy that has existed in the parts of the Church which knew about Smyth, but refused to say anything, another example of non-compliance to Nolan principles? In short, the Church needs a set of its own principles – Church Nolan Principles. These could then be appealed to whenever ethical standards are under attack or possibly being betrayed.
In thinking about the possibility of a set of principles that might help to guide the Church in the future, I realised very quickly that the Church in some areas of its life, can operate in ways that are a complete antithesis to ordinary standards of behaviour. Taking this thought further, I have come up with a set of seven negative principles that churches sometimes follow. Most of these impact on the ethical behaviour of the Church. The examples that I give of these failures of standards, could be illustrated from various areas of church life. For the purpose of this post I have chosen to make my points by looking at the recent thirtyone:eight Review on Jonathan Fletcher. It is there we can see clearly what I choose to call seven anti-principles of church life. These examples of poor behaviour each constitute a kind of shadow to the ideals that Nolan wanted to be enshrined in public life. Some of these church anti-principles were found in JF himself and many still pervade the culture that nurtured him and over which he presided to the harm of many. Let us look at each one of these, and see how they are illustrated by incidents or situations in the thirtyone:eight Review.
The first anti-principle that was revealed in the Review is the one that always gives priority to the interests of the institution over the needs of the individual. The survival and the preservation of the institution’s power, in this case the con-evo constituency, will always take precedence over everything else. We can call this anti-principle, the priority of institutional power. This first anti-principle has two aspects or sub anti-principles. The first of these is defensive in tone. It will seek to push back any challenges to the whole by a whistle-blower or any other kind of challenger. To make this defence, there are a number of powerful weapons at hand. First there is shunning and shaming, followed by threats of various kinds. The ultimate weapon is expulsion. In the case of a religious group, like the ReNew constituency, expulsion is much more threatening than just being required to leave the organisation. It has the implied threat of eternal punishment because you no longer belong to the ‘saved’ group. These various weapons of control over difficult or dissident members, have had the result that, up till now, few individual voices have been heard in this group beyond the circle of its leaders. The group entity has always prevailed in its determination to preserve the interests of the whole against those who question or challenge.
The second part of this anti-principle of group protection is the active encouragement of actions or inactions that preserve the group. This anti-principle is about doing things or not doing them so that the interests of the institution may prevail. The fulfilment of this second anti-principle is especially illustrated by the extraordinary inaction and failure of anyone in the ReNew circles to say anything about Smyth or JF. This studied passivity of an entire cohort of Christian believers went on for over forty years. It also accounts for what I referred to in a blog post as the ‘Great Silence’ that descended over the con-evo world after the offences of JF were first revealed in 2019. The Review has used one word to account for this silence, the word ‘fear’. It is this fear cultivated among insiders combined with an obsessive loyalty to the system that has helped to protect the organisation for so long. Loyalty, fear and desperate protectionism towards the system/group have pervaded the con-evo world. The institution prevailed by excluding the dissidents and whistle-blowers and by forcing loyal members to remain in passive faithful dependence.
The third anti-principle which is to be found more among the leaders of the con-evo constituency and tacitly tolerated among the followers can be summarised in this way. It is the ‘born to rule’ anti-principle. Someone has to be in charge, the reasoning goes, so those who went to the right schools/camps and knew the right people have an inbuilt and unchallengeable right to be leaders. Leaders like the current crop of ReNew leaders who have assumed power in this way, want everyone to believe that their motives for taking charge are entirely altruistic. However, there is no discernible democratic or accountable process through which to raise questions about suitability when they get things wrong. Leaders who are appointed according to the rules of nepotism and the school tie may or may not be good and altruistic. But whatever their qualities, they certainly need to be clearly accountable. The fact that JF presided over the same congregation for thirty years was likely to be extremely unhealthy for all concerned. But, being answerable to no one but himself, he could indulge his power and narcissistic needs free from any challenge.
Secrecy is another anti-principle to be discerned in the thirtyone:report. We find secrecy in mysterious meetings among ReNew leaders where no minutes were produced or any record of who was present. We can also refer to the way that the value of secrecy was sustained by the miasma of fear. It was this anti-principle of secrecy that, protected known miscreants over long periods of time. Secrecy was and is a necessary principle of the ‘school tie’ type of governance we have touched on above.
Secrecy is closely linked to another anti-principle, that of manipulation of the truth. Some of the ReNew leaders spoke of not knowing anything of the JF allegations until the early part of 2019. (+Rod Thomas has now made it clear that he knew in the autumn of 2018.) These are claims that are, frankly, difficult to believe. The Diocese of Southwark was making detailed investigations into JFs behaviour in 2016 before the PTO was withdrawn (or surrendered) at the beginning of 2017. This part of the story is important, and it is a pity that the Southwark authorities contributed, apparently, nothing to the Review. But even without the testimony of the Southwark team, it is hard for us to believe that none of the detailed enquiries into JF’s behaviour got back to the ReNew leaders. It is also difficult to imagine that a thorough investigation took place which did not involve in any way the bishop in charge of the constituency of which JF was a key leading member. We are also not helped to understand how a PTO suspension was to be enforced without anyone, not even the overseeing bishop, being told. How is anyone reading the Review to make sense of these lacunae of information? One additional fact that I have gleaned from a completely different source is that JF was ‘marched off’ one of the Iwerne camps in the summer of 2017. Even if it might possibly have been the summer of 2018, that is still something that could not have taken place except at the instruction of someone in authority. From what we know of the hierarchical system in operation in ReNew, somebody very senior was taking sanctions against JF in the summer of 2017 (or 2018). That does not fit in with the protestations of William Taylor or +Rod Thomas and the others that they only discovered in late 2018/early 2019..
The ‘orthodoxy’ of the ReNew group is seen to be an all-pervading system which does not tolerate discussion or disagreement. JF, in his own writings, showed himself keen on the notion that truth never changes. This could be seen as a pervading theological principle that is continued to this day. I want to call this an anti-principle, but I have to acknowledge that this anti-principle is not one that involves ethics or morality. Thus it is quite different from the others I have mentioned so far.
Nolan mentions, in his final point, the word leadership. By this he is drawing attention to the fact that it is important for anybody in an organisation to be able to take a lead, when necessary, to challenge bad or dishonest practice. There is little evidence of this kind of leadership in the rank and file of the con-evo world. Rather the power of intimidation, the fear of being labelled ‘unsound’ and thus to be shunned, effectively sustains the status-quo even now in the world over which JF used to preside.
I wish that that the whole Church and its constituent parts, including those under the ReNew umbrella, could aspire to something similar to the seven ethical principles of Lord Nolan. The civil service and the government of this country try to follow them, at least in theory. Even when they fail, these institutions do one better than the Church. Not only does the Church not even have an equivalent list of principles, but it often seems to operate from the negative list that I have set out. The anti-principles that I have named here, are doing and will continue to do enormous damage to our national Church.
Yet another instance where the Church has failed to live by these principles, and to which more than twenty reports have been devoted over the last few decades, is the issue of racial discrimination within the Church. This is the subject of an article in today’s Times (though behind a paywall): https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/church-of-england-buys-silence-of-racism-victims-5zbsxfzhj, and the wider problem was touched upon in a segment on BBC Radio 4’s ‘Sunday’ programme yesterday (with Emily Buchanan). As with sexual abuse cases, victims of racial discrimination (which is simply yet another form of abuse or bullying) have been fobbed off with compensation, subject to NDAs – the Church’s legal instrument of choice for almost all purposes. This its ill with the need for ‘accountability’ and ‘openness’.
The Church now intends to deal with the issue of discrimination by mandating quotas. It remains to be seen whether this will be a desirable or effective stratagem for dealing with the problem. In fairness, the Church’s attitudes towards race relations are not quite as unfortunate and discreditable as they were a couple of generations ago, when – for example – the diocese of London under William Wand covertly discouraged ‘New Commonwealth’ migrants from attending a number of Anglican churches (famously viz., the Khama/Williams affair, when Wand, in an unholy alliance with the incumbent of St George’s Campden Hill, the elders of Khama’s Bamangwato tribe, Khama’s own uncle, Daniel Malan – the NP PM of South Africa, and the CO under Thomas Lloyd and the usually ‘progressive’ Arthur Creech Jones, tried to block the future president of Botswana’s attempted act of ‘miscegenation’ with a clerk at Lloyds of London). And, of course, the Church’s current attitudes are certainly better than the days when the SPG, now the USPG, held 300 slaves in Barbados, branded with the legend ‘Society’ (All Souls has recently made financial recompense for the Codrington bequest, and has changed the name of its library, but it is not yet evident that the USPG has made an equivalent atonement, although its association with the ‘peculiar institution’ has been the subject of conferences it has itself sponsored).
Thanks Froghole. Which All Souls has made reparation?
We still have a very long way to go re. racism in the Church – as the likes of Jarel Robinson-Brown and Augustine Ihm have found. It was to be hoped that Abp Sentamu would have improved matters but it didn’t seem high on his agenda.
Racism is just one aspect of the unhealthy attitudes to power which, shamefully, seem to permeate our Church.
Sorry – I meant All Souls College, Oxford. The bequest of Col. Christopher Codrington (1668-1710) was for Codrington College, Barbados and All Souls (of which he was a fellow).
Please see here: https://www.asc.ox.ac.uk/codrington-legacy
Codrington’s father established the plantations in the Leeward Islands, and functioned as governor of Barbados. He was also related to the Drax family (now of Charborough Park, near Wimborne, Dorset, whose owner is the local MP). The second Christopher – the benefactor – was governor-general of the Leeward Islands. He was a poet (a friend of Malebranche and Prior); he distinguished himself in action in Flanders, and was a bibliophile – collecting 10,000 books. He left between £80,000-100,000, of which £10,000 was left to All Souls (where he is buried, and by which he has long been esteemed a ‘second founder’ after Henry Chichele). The library is designed by Nicholas Hawksmoor, and is an amazing space. Dr Johnson remarked to Boswell of the library that “if a man has a mind to prance, he must study at Christ Church and All Souls”.
There is a fine statue in the library to Codrington by Sir Henry Cheere (who may also have prepared a bust, now at Codrington College). The warden and fellows considered the possibility of removing it, but have decided to keep it where it is.
The Codringtons remained a distinguished family into the twentieth century, seated at Dodington Park, near Chipping Sodbury, Gloucestershire (there is a hamlet of Codrington in the adjacent parish of Wapley). They resisted abolition, naturally: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/lbs/person/view/470. By 1993 they had long since run out of money, and sold Dodington, which in 2003 was purchased by James Dyson, whose business operations were then at nearby Malmesbury (the Codrington family is now near Witney, Oxfordshire, and has suffered some tragedy in recent years). The estate, whose wall has lately been repaired along its full length, is now in immaculate condition, but has many ‘keep out’ signs. The demesne was contiguous with the parish of Dodington, and the ancient, but reconstructed, church of St Mary, which is metres away from the house, is closed and completely inaccessible. It had become a chapel of ease in 1953, and a closure scheme was passed in 1974, but the Codringtons permitted at least an annual service until their departure.
I see that Justin Welby has announced (as reported this morning) that NDAs will be banned within the Church. However, it is not clear whether the ban applies only to racist incidents, but to other forms of abuse. NDAs can sometimes have their uses: in protecting the identity of abuse victims, for example, so I do not yet know how far the ban will go. The archbishop is reported as stating that they ‘must no longer be used to silence abuse victims’ (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/church-of-england-ban-ndas-after-racist-abuse-exposed-xg6v77t6s, again, behind the usual Times paywall).
Many thanks. All Souls College, Oxford, which has made over £100,000 (from net assets of £474m as per the 2020 annual report) to Codrington College, Barbados. The slaves had been held for the benefit of Codrington College.
Christopher Codrington gave £10,000 (at 1710 values, equivalent to £10.5m now) to construct a new library and fill it with additional books. He himself had a library of about 10,000 volumes. The library, by Hawksmoor, is a magnificent space. The warden and fellows considered removing the statue of Codrington (in the garb of a Roman general) by Sir Henry Cheere, but instead erected a plaque to the memory of the slaves.
Codrington also used the profits of his plantations to build Dodington Park, Gloucestershire, since 2003 the home of Sir James Dyson. The Codrington family remained there until 1993, and subsequent Codringtons opposed the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery, but they were nonetheless a distinguished family, prominent in the army and navy, into the twentieth century.
I also note that it was reported yesterday that Justin Welby has announced that the use of NDAs to suppress the voice of victims of racial abuse (and perhaps also the victims of other abuse) will now be banned in the Church.
I wrote more about all this in more detail earlier, but it appears to have been moderated or rejected (I had included some external links).
Thanks for the clarification, interesting.
Re. NDAs, unfortunately Justin Welby hasn’t got the power to ban their use in every C of E organisation. But he is at least trying to use his influence to stop them, and good for him.
It isn’t possible to operate by a set of principles better than you operated under previously, once you become a church leader. Try as you might, and there is good evidence the seniors don’t try very hard, you cannot easily exceed your standard of principled living once ordained.
Moreover, any weaknesses you possess for example in standards of ethics or say morality, will be amplified by a leadership mantle. And the higher you rise the greater will be the magnification of your weaknesses.
In my opinion we all have weaknesses that aren’t really tested until we are positioned in leadership.
Those in recruitment therefore play a crucial role in selecting out anti-principles and favouring positive values such as Stephen highlights. This isn’t really going to happen when the seniors recruiting behave in such an unprincipled way as we repeatedly see.
For real change perhaps we need to start over?
May I also draw out another “anti-principle”? I suggest the concept of “cultivating naivety”
This may seem a little obscure at first but I have seen it operated extensively in both the con-evo and charismatic Anglican constituencies. Basically young people are routinely indoctrinated with a set of principles that barely equips them for the world outside, leads them toward a life of service into (for some) missions and ministry that aren’t really sustainable, and finally blocks out their discerning functions such that they struggle to see the obvious (to others) conflicts at work in the higher layers of authority in the Churches.
Once they reach adulthood and parenthood many sincere people then repeat the application of the anti-principle to their own children.
That’s really interesting, Steve. Could you say a little more? What, for instance are the principles that don’t equip them for life outside the evangelical bubble?
Our young are taught a “Father Christmas Christianity”: magic is the way god works. Emphasis is given to the miracles of provision, such as the loaves and fishes, or the water into wine at Cana. The suffering Christ, his biblical antecedent Job, and the angry psalms are skipped over. We are taught to wait on God for gifts whilst ignoring the provision of talents and abilities he’s already given us.
2 further quick examples: the myth of missionaries and the scandal of young marriages.
Young people are taught that being a missionary is the highest form of Christian service, by which they mean going to poor non-white countries for a duration of from 1 week to one life. This ignores the spiritual riches they impart to us when they visit us rather eclipsing our own. It enables us to put “missionary giving” itemised by couple-going on our P&L accounts. Those young people we send lose a key part of their early adulthoods and when they return because they can’t settle abroad with young children, find themselves passed over for a new couple on the missionary expense line, and not much place to go except for, you’ve guessed it, ordination. In the meantime we train them to become (to an outsider at least) professional beggars, constantly having to pump their social media families for donations, rather than having the dignity of a trade or profession like Paul.
Which leads on to the scandalous way we push our young people into marriage far too early. They go along with this because they want sex, this route bring the only one allowed.
At one extreme, you’re only allowed to date someone if marriage is a serious possibility, indeed likelihood. How ridiculous is this! How can you possibly know how to evaluate a potential marriage partner if you’ve no experience of relationships?
Sex is both feared and overestimated. Virginity is covertly seized on as a guarantor of good sex. The only time secular relationship expertise is sought is when divorce is already imminent. God has given human beings the wisdom and insight to fathom the depths of relationship, and yet we ignore this until it’s too late.
Our churches’ young marry way before they know who they are themselves, let alone the other.
Our teaching on sexuality and its restriction tends to the masculine and ignores feminine sex drive altogether.
We say we are biblical but actually work a kind of “magpie Christianity” which absorbs the shiny bits of the culture around it, such as the idolisation of romance and “the one”.
I wonder what those generations of youth now growing up think of the older generation of adulterous priests and sex abuse merchants.
We are just not being honest with our young. They generally absorb what we tell them, up to a point at least. Perhaps we are afraid of them discovering the truth about our own ordinariness and fallibility.
I can see your concerns, Steve. But outside of very strict Christian circles, most young people have sex whenever they want, even regular church goers. What worries me is the extent to which they are pressured, not into marriage, but sex.
I probably didn’t explain this very well. You raise an important general point Athena.
Into either / both. Belief and just getting on with living aren’t modelled. I blame “body theology” for the cliqueyness and the obsession with men and women making “demands” on each other. Some denominations even teach that layperson isn’t a “vocation” (as far as I’m concerned it’s v. much the most important one). I’ve never set out to be naive but the atmosphere utterly enforces it. Marriage is your affair, not any church’s (vicars only got involved because they were effectively local government): you should ask friends to pray a blessing; and don’t ask clergy for permission for separate beds. Christians should be prepared to properly befriend others even if not married.
Marriage is actually a legal contract. Hence the stuff to sign, the witnesses, and certain rights and obligations.
Over the years, and forgive me Michael CJ if this is not quite what you were referring to, I’ve lamented several friends who I’ve had to lose because such friendship wasn’t possible. These were people whose opinion and character I really admired, but I realised (or it was made explicit) there was another agenda going on. Respecting boundaries, it’s a no-go. Shame though.
Thanks Steve. I have vivid memories of our family ‘living by faith’ (i.e. depending on donations) when I was a child, and would never want to repeat it.
As ever, Stephen, your new considerations give much food for thought. Yes, the Nolan principles…. although Bash was going for the top men from the top schools etc, the fact is that in several pairs of brothers I know of, the Iwerne one ended up quietly teaching in the same type of school or running a con-evo church, whereas the non-Iwerne (or ex-Iwerne) brother did indeed become spectacular leaders in eg politics, diplomacy, academia etc., exercising exactly those principles you have mentioned.
Did people see tonight’s Panorama? So sad.
So wrong, and hurtful, and such a waste of talent.
Indeed. And so familiar. Same techniques used in all bullying incidents.
Good analysis from Stephen. The ReNew clergy leadership’s response has been poor. Its group mindset is stuck in an 80s time warp, perhaps because of the age of the leaders. They seem to think they are unassailable, probably because they’ve got away with behaving unaccountably to date. But these discredited clergy and their discredited personal bishop Rod Thomas, the Bishop of Maidstone, can’t really expect the rest of the Church watch them say some fine words but effectively ignore the victims’ pain and the damage done to victims’ lives; not publish proper investigative reports; not compensate victims properly; brush off their own personal accountability and then simply wait and hope to get on with business as usual.
Let’s just say it again for the hard of hearing: devoted and trusting believers have been badly hurt and their lives have been scarred. Careers can’t just carry on as if there’s no come back for those who are responsible for it. Leaders are accountable, whether they like it or not. Fig leaves won’t cover it. The eyes of the Church here and round the world are on them. The self-promoted image of ReNew leaders is that they are strong and noble truth-bearers. At the moment the world is seeing the opposite.
Thank you Steve, another great blog post.
The anti-principles are thought provoking. I would be tempted to tweak anti-principle 3 a bit – I do think that, in addition to not having a “born to rule” attitude, the lack of diversity in life experience, thought-process, educational background and above all, emotional intelligence is crucial in preventing group think and influences so many of the other anti-principles. The exclusivity of leadership positions to people who are so extremely similar in background creates blindspots and hampers appropriate emotional responses to challenges.
Welcome Isobel H. I believe you are new here -at least to commenting. Your ‘tweak’ as you put it is a very good. In my defence for this every other not quite thought through ideas I write at great speed and the ideas I have are not always fully formed. I wonder if the lack of life experience ended up trapping JF and his followers in a kind of social/ecclesiastical bubble which was difficult to escape. I also see the con-evo theology as a claustrophobic bubble but then you would expect that from a non-conservative. I want the freedom to go on finding new ideas and answers, not just recycle the old ones
Thank you Stephen for the reply. Yes, first time commenting but I’ve been reading your blogs for a while.
I agree with you that this type of bubble with a very similar viewpoint is unhealthy. It also creates a culture of ‘rockstars’ within that world who are revered and who cannot be questioned. Not conducive to challenge!
Hi, Isobel. Welcome. Lovely name, are you Scottish?
Thanks EnglishAthena. No, I’m so very much not Scottish! South African who have lived in the UK for 20+ years!
😀. *giggle* Oh well! I wondered because it’s a slightly less common spelling in England, but the spelling of choice north of the border.
This is an interesting reflection. I think my reaction was – there is an entire book of guidance and principles – the Bible – which is claimed by some as the authority on all things. Sadly, as Jesus said in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced, even if someone rises from the dead’. The level of corruption, control and clinging to power, money and influence over lives seem much more important than any other principles. Every thing and everyone else hurt by it are collateral damage. I find it beyond sad that it has come to this.