In many ways, the final 30 years of the 20^th century were a golden age to be a clergyman in the Church of England. Various issues affecting the profession had found resolution during that time. The first was a levelling up of stipends so that the wide anomalies of pay that had existed in pre-war years no longer prevailed. A second privilege was for the beneficed clergy to have had the security of the freehold. This meant that, assuming that no criminal activity was involved, most difficulties or challenges could be resolved by simply patiently sitting it out. The word ‘living’ meant precisely that. One could stay in a parish right up to the age of retirement. Decent pensions had been established so that many clergy would go on to live useful lives after retirement, free of poverty.   The old system of secure tenure, needless to say, had incubated abuses of various kinds.   Incompetence or immorality which did not break the law of the land might be hidden and never dealt with. Freehold allowed an eminently unsuitable clergyman to remain in his vicarage without doing any work and obtaining a full salary.  Anthony Trollope recounts the 16 year sojourn in Italy of Canon Stanhope for ‘health reasons’.  If you were determined to be idle and give your life to collecting butterflies or alcohol consumption, there was very little the system could do about it.

The relatively recent reforms of clergy freehold regulations have given us the system of Common Tenure. Although the wide-ranging privileges pertaining to freehold have been modified, the clergy of the Church of England still enjoy a great deal of employment protection.  Gross idleness still exists and there are stories of clergy who have so completely alienated their congregations that they preside over an empty church on a Sunday morning. The Common Tenure system does not find it simple or easy to cope swiftly with a situation of pastoral breakdown. There are regulations in place to resolve these situations, but quite often everyone sits around waiting for an upcoming compulsory retirement. It is still very difficult to move on an Anglican clergyman, as long they are innocent of any criminal behaviour.

Back in 2003 the church introduced the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) and this came into effect in 2006.  This was to allow the Church to operate a streamlined system of holding clergy accountable in the event of malfeasance.  It would also provide mechanisms for any complaints against the clergy to be heard beyond the parish where he/she worked.  The alleged offences did not have to be criminal in nature.  This Measure came into effect in 2006.  Overall, the CDM has not done a great deal to make the system better for all parties.  It has in fact done much to undermine the sense of security that the clergy used to enjoy.  Complaints under CDM rules are allocated to internal processes within a diocese.  The most serious cases come before the diocesan bishop who acts as both judge and jury in some cases. Archdeacons and church lawyers have a part to play in the quasi-legal decisions that emerge from these processes.   In spite of some revisions to the Measure in 2016, the Sheldon Trust, based in Exeter, still reports massive stress and unhappiness caused by this legislation. If the clergy of my generation enjoyed too much in the way of legal protection against complainants, then the clergy of this generation have on occasion become vulnerable to harassment and even persecution through the exercise of this Measure.

In the past week the Sheldon document entitled ‘I was handed over to the dogs’: lived experience, clerical trauma and the handling of complaints against clergy in the Church of England, has appeared. This is a harrowing document, and, in many ways, it could be sufficient on its own to put off an ordinand from pursuing his/her vocation. It speaks about the lived experience of stress, uncertainty and life changing fear that can come to anyone who has had to enter the legal processes of the CDM. The current document is also presented as a response to the central Church seeking to replace the old legislation of 2003/2016. Up till this point Sheldon has regarded itself as a partner with the Church in redrafting this legislation and offering its expertise in helping the Church find a replacement for what has gone before. The point has been reached where the Trust no longer feels able to continue this partnership. The gulf of understanding between the two parties has become so wide that the Trust no longer wants to give energy to this process of reform because of the way the Church is conducting this process. In short, the Sheldon Trust is saying to the Church (my precis) ‘we tried to help you but your response to the research we have offered to share with you has been feeble.  We have given a lot of time trying to show what an utter monster the CDM has become. If you don’t want to listen then you have to accept that we have to withdraw from the process of cooperation and advice.  Our research showed that your legislation just been a source of cruelty and terrible pain for many of your clergy.  The vast majority of CDM victims are found to be innocent of any moral failure but they still made to pass through a crucible of life-changing pain. You have received our analysis of what is wrong.   You will now have to carry on a reform of the process on your own’.

The Church of England, in short, is being left to make huge changes in its legislation to deal with disciplinary matters connected with the clergy. There have been many accounts of the way the CDMs issued against the clergy have functioned. Two descriptions well sums up the process, inconsistent and devoid of compassion.  Some CDM processes have spawned the tortured institution of core groups.  It has, however, been noticed on many occasions that few of these core groups are deployed against the bishops themselves. There is, as far as I know, currently no shortage of CDMs in the system somewhere, lodged against bishops.  The protocols of the CDM generally does not find it easy to scrutinise the behaviour of senior clergy and so, in most cases, these CDMs of bishops etc seems to be automatically dismissed when they reach the attention of an Archbishop. What the Church is being asked to do in creating a new structure for legislation is indeed massive. The Church of England needs the data gathered by the Sheldon Trust and the collective wisdom amassed by their listening work with over-stressed clergy.  These are among those who have experienced real trauma over the years following the arrival of the CDM.  It is hard to know whether the Church has the human and organisational resources to produce a new model to replace the CDM failure.  The House of Bishops has already agreed that the CDM process is not fit for purpose.  In spite of this, it does nothing to halt the notorious Kafkaesque process being played out at Christchurch Oxford. The recent revelations by Private Eye about the restrictions being imposed on the Dean under CDM protocols are grotesque.

How do we see the future of the CDM process or its replacement? The answer is that the labour and time required to create such a new process is enormous. A group of people, with the combined skills of theology, law and pastoral common sense, would need to spend a couple of years working out how the whole process of clergy discipline can be reimagined. Do we have these resources? We probably do, but the people I have spoken with, suggest that we need this work to be done by a completely new set of church officials.  The original authors and current overseers of the CDM legislation need to be swept aside.  Someone, or better, a group, needs fresh ideas about the best ways to resolve conflict in parishes, while recognising that a system of discipline for clergy is still needed. The Sheldon reports suggest that many complaints have nothing to do with bullying or abuse, but frequently centre on issues of churchmanship. We need perhaps also a new breed of bishops which can get to the heart of such disputes between clergy and laity because they understand the pastoral needs of both sides.   In saying this, we are returning to a familiar cry.  Give us bishops who are pastors to their clergy rather than judges over them.

I should finish this piece with a brief reflection on the enormously difficult task that faces anyone with authority in the Church having to sort out the problems of the Diocese of Winchester. If Bishop Dakin is unable to agree to whatever is proposed to solve the crisis, the conflict could become very difficult.  A diocesan bishop in the House of Lords, even after a public challenge of this kind, still has a great deal of legal clout in the Church.  No individual or group at present oversees the bishop of a diocese, and no one is entrusted with the authority to question his/her decisions.  The fact of a Diocesan Synod opposing its bishop is, I believe, unprecedented and the ramifications are wide.  Church law does not seem to allow for a diocesan bishop to be guilty of anything untoward and there are no obvious precedents.  The Bishop Ball case is not a precedent since the current complaints about +Dakin are not about criminal behaviour.  CDMs against bishops normally seem to fail, no doubt, on the assumption that bishops are always above unworthy or unethical behaviour.   The CDM process failed to anticipate bishops ever coming under scrutiny. Rules and sanctions are for the ‘lower’ clergy. The solution to what has been called by some as Dakingate, is at present unknowable. Whatever happens to bring an end to the current tension, it will require a great deal of money and the attention of legal fixers in somewhat the same way as the Channel Islands breakdown. One has to ask in this situation whether all the right skills are available to the Church at the centre.  Do we have the resources of law, pastoral skill and insight that can resolve these dramatic and catastrophic disruptions to the system?

It is ironic that these two major areas of church life which require so much in the way of leadership and technical and legal skill should be taking place during the sabbatical of the Archbishop of Canterbury. One hopes and prays that wise heads will prevail and that we as a Church will come through. Wisdom in high places is what is required, and we pray that it may be found.

My own personal knowledge of the Winchester Diocese is slight.  Apart from once leading a two day residential workshop for the Continuing Ministerial Programme some twenty-five years ago, I have had no other dealings with the Diocese.  Nevertheless, I find myself wanting to understand more fully what is behind the announcement several days ago that the Bishop of Winchester is ‘stepping back for six weeks from his duties’. 

What can any outsider, like me, hope to uncover about this situation beyond the terse announcement from the Bishop of Southampton?   Thanks to the internet, the answer is quite a lot.  Two major sources of information are available to us.  One is the free and frank discussion by insiders on the website Thinking Anglicans.  Supplementing that, there are a variety of fascinating, if sometimes difficult to understand, documents about Diocesan policy that have been produced at various times during +Tim Dakin’s tenure as Bishop.  A third source of information on the Diocesan website sets out +Dakin’s own professional and academic background.  As some are now questioning whether the original appointment of +Dakin to his present post was justified, it is natural that these qualifications are being examined with close attention.  A copy of his doctoral dissertation is available online for inspection for any who wish to read it.  This was awarded by Winchester University in 2020.

My starting place for looking at these questions is a document, a job specification for a post in the Winchester Diocese, dated 25^th September 2019.  It is for a post called a Church Growth Missioner. The post did not appear to be filled at the time.  Nevertheless, we have something that would have been read by all would be applicants for the post.  It gives those of us on the outside of the diocese a good snapshot as to how the Bishop and his School of Mission saw the progress of his ambitious plans for the Diocese.  Backed up by other evidence from internally published documents, we would be right to think that these published ideas are a good summary of the Bishop’s own thinking about what he wanted to see for the priorities for the Winchester Diocese and its parishes. 

According to this first document, the Diocesan Synod in 2013 had committed itself to four strategic priorities in its move to becoming a ‘mission-shaped diocese’.  In summary, these priorities committed the Diocese to 1) authentic discipleship, 2) a reimagining of the Church, 3) to be agents of social transformation and 4) belonging together in Christ.  To undergird this vision the Bishop had summarised the ‘mission of Jesus’ in three words.  These were to be passionate, pioneering and prophetic.  These ‘P’ words had, I believe, formed the substance of the enthronement sermon given by +Dakin in 2012.  Another somewhat curious word appears in the Missioner job description – sodal.  The spell check on my computer is querying whether such a word exists, but +Dakin explains that it refers to the aspects of ministry beyond the conventional parish ministry.  These are sector ministries, chaplaincy, fresh expressions and new forms of church.  Moving a conservative establishment like the Diocese of Winchester to such radical ways of thinking and practice was always likely to be a tough call.  The issue is perhaps not whether the Bishop’s ideas and aspirations were right or wrong, but whether it was ever realistic to expect such old and new structures would be able to come together friction free.  Can sodal ever be reconciled with ‘modal’, the more conventional methods of parish life and ministry?  Just as importantly can a whole diocese receive inspiration from heavily jargonised slogans of questionable meaning such as ‘living the mission of Jesus’?  For some years, all the parishes of the Winchester Diocese have been struggling with a further mission initiative, known as Mission Action Plans (MAP).  Every benefice, large or small, was required to draw up a local MAP.  This would then be updated every few years.  My expectation is that all such Diocesan initiatives would have introduced into many parishes an inordinate amount of stress and pressure.  Surviving these frequent demands on energy and time would not have left parish priests with much stamina to continue with the day to day pastoral care of their existing congregations.

Churchmanship is thought by some to be at the heart of the present resistance of many senior leaders to the oversight of +Dakin.  No doubt a clash between conventional ways of being church and mission-focused ideas originally forged in Africa and elsewhere overseas was likely.  But the chief mistake, according to +Dakin’s critics was to expect any church model for growth to be suitable for every situation.  That is just not the way the Church of England works.  The Church Missionary Society (CMS) where +Dakin had worked as Chief Executive, is a conservative organisation and this, added to the fact that he had little understanding or experience of English parish life, made a culture clash almost inevitable. In Anglicanism, one size can never fit all.  Few church leaders would even have attempted such an attempt to lay down a single model of church life for every parish in the diocese.  The only other place in the world attempting such a thing is the Diocese of Sydney in Australia.  The attempt there has been a cause of much unhappiness.  I have no idea whether +Dakin wants all ordinands to be trained locally (Sydney-style), but that would have been a logical next step for a monochrome mission-focussed diocese to take.  Reading the documents put out by the diocese gives one no sense of any varieties of churchmanship being celebrated or even tolerated in the parishes.  There is no acknowledgement of the gifts that different traditions can make to the whole.  I can imagine that more traditional and catholic parishes are feeling under siege under this episcopacy.  They would welcome the opportunity to catch their breath during this episcopal ‘stepping back’.

Whenever a public figure is questioned over their ability to do a job, there will always be someone who goes back to look at the appointment process to see if all protocols were followed.  It has been widely commented on that +Dakin had no parish experience in the Church of England and that has come to be a important issue in the discussion about his suitability to be appointed as the bishop of a diocese in 2011.  A second area of query is his formation and training for the priesthood and his other academic qualifications.   There are various breaks in +Dakin’s published CVs which have not been accounted for.  His first BA degree is from a University in Plymouth followed by a MTh in 1987.  The MTh was obtained from King’s College London and, according to Wikipedia, this was linked to ‘ordination training’.  As far as I know the days of ordination training at Kings were long over by 1987.  Students who studied at Kings went on elsewhere to complete training.  Even if that year in London was counted for full time training, it was a very short period.  Most ordination candidates were then required to do at least two years.  The missing period between 1987 and 1993 also needs clarification.  What was the young Dakin doing at that time?  The published account on the Diocesan website refers to him being in Oxford doing doctoral research with no dates given. Did this time of study in any way link with ordination training or formation? 

The circumstances of his ordination, already discussed on Thinking Anglicans, need to be explained further.  The account that is given suggests that the ordination was in 1993 when he took up the job of Principal of Carlile College in Nairobi.  Was this ordination authorised by an English bishop issuing what I believe are called ‘letters dismissary’?  Had he passed through an English selection conference which could then be activated in Africa? Was anyone in England involved with his ordination in Africa?  The Crockford entry we have, also seems to suggest that the curacy at Nairobi only came into operation the year after he was made Deacon – in 1994.  In short, the ‘title parish’ seems only to have been added to the process of his ordination as a kind of afterthought.

The gaps and queries we have about one of the most senior prelates in the Church of England are legitimate.  No one is suggesting actual academic fraud but there are outstanding questions that that leave loose ends.   Over the next six weeks the question of whether +Dakin is ever to return to his post at Winchester has to be resolved.  One would like simultaneously to have these additional queries about his academic and ordination credentials cleared up once and for all.  As things stand at present, the suggestion that +Dakin is underqualified and has been over-promoted is hard to argue against.  That would also, by implication, cast a finger of blame against unnamed individuals who presided over his episcopal appointment. Was his appointment to Winchester by any chance an expedient to extricate him from his CMS post where, by the accounts of those who knew him then, he was the cause of much unhappiness?  Almost all diocesan bishops have first served as suffragans so as to prove their worth before taking on a diocese.   Is the failure to observe this convention in this case now a reason never again to break it?  The ‘stepping back’ of a diocesan bishop in the face of pressure by his Synod and senior clergy is unprecedented in the history of the Church of England.   Is this the beginning of a new calibration of power in the Church?  Will power now return to the same Synods who represent the grass roots of the parishes to make autocratic and arbitrary decision making by prelates impossible?  There are many possible positive possibilities for the future.  The task of reallocating power in the Church will not happen overnight, but, when it happens, we may see something healthier, wiser and more just in our national Church.  Let us hope so.

In a statement today (Thursday) the Archbishop of Canterbury has said ‘everyone who knew about the abuse perpetrated by the late John Smyth and failed to report it will be investigated by the National Safeguarding Team’.

This extract from the online story by Madeline Davies will be included in the printed version of the Church Times coming out tomorrow, Friday. On the face of it, these words have to be considered as fantasy because the number of people who knew about Smyth in the period between 1982 and 2012 number at least a hundred.   The idea of any organisation investigating a hundred people without enormous resources of manpower and time is risible. But there is a further aspect to the statement by the Archbishop. Many of these presumed witnesses had been known to him personally both in his undergraduate years and later.  He has moved close to these same circles for much of his ministry. He must have had at the very least a suspicion about who knew what, even if  he had limited knowledge of the detail before he was properly briefed in 2013. Since that revelation in 2013, it must have hung heavily upon him as a Christian that so many people he had once looked up to were among the colluders and bystanders for one who did so much evil and caused so much pain.  The pain was not just physical; the actions reverberated right through the networks of loyalty and friendship that bound the constituencies of evangelicals together.  The con evo group which had protected Smyth and his crimes for over 30 years has successfully kept its silence.  Is a promise of an investigation now, forty years on, going to undo any of the damage that the silence had so dramatically prolonged?

The full investigation announced by the Archbishop today, together with his full personal apology to the victims of John Smyth, is additional to the Makin enquiry. This latter is now a full 12 months behind schedule. The report is believed to have turned out to be a long way from completion and we are unlikely to see anything during this calendar year 2021. Even if people are now revealing what they know to Keith Makin, this information has been proving difficult to acquire.  The code of silence and fear that we noted in the Fletcher enquiry seems to be routine in the con-evo circles that Smyth occupied. Assuming a successful completion of the Makin report, we would hope to see the full story revealed by this time next year. What will it show? It will probably show that numbers of people had some inkling that something was amiss, but it was not in their paygrade or their responsibility to do anything about it. Meanwhile considerable sums of money, from private charitable trusts run by the Colman family, were spent on allowing Smyth to take up a post in Zimbabwe and then South Africa where he was free to groom and abuse young men once again.  We must never forget the fate of Guide Nyachuru, whose death should hang heavy on the consciences of all who facilitated the departure of Smyth to Africa.

We need to return to the Archbishop’s statement once more. It is breath-taking in its implications. If everyone who knew Smyth and was in some position to disclose comes to a total of 100 individuals, where are the resources to come from to make this kind of enquiry?  We are not just talking about individuals here and there, we are also talking about entire institutions which were deeply implicated in the story.  There are many stories of corporate failure to add that of individuals.  Just to list the institutions implicated in the Smyth story, we have quite a formidable group. We have the Titus/Iwerne trustees, Winchester College, Scripture Union and the entire REFORM network at the time. There are also several large parishes where the Iwerne influence was strong. There is also the question of the funding bodies that enabled the Zambezi Mission to come into being. The full story of what John Smyth did overseas has yet to be told. Are there institutions in Zimbabwe and South Africa to be investigated for enabling his activities? How does one set up enquiries into so many groups and organisations? The obvious answer is that it is impossible.

When we come to the individuals who knew, or may have suspected, that something was seriously wrong, we are dealing with quite a large group of current leaders in the con evo world. Obviously, many of them were extremely young at the time but we need to hear directly from them.  Hugh Palmer, the former Vicar of All Souls Langham Place, is named in some accounts as knowing the events of the past around Smyth.  The slightly younger generation of leaders, like William Taylor, need to come forward and tell everything they knew.  Silence is not the same as ignorance.  Silence may indicate complicity at the least.   It is hard to imagine that a one-time chairman of the Iwerne Trust was allowed to disappear without any discussion or comment. One would like to know more about the relationship between Jonathan Fletcher and John Smyth.  Fletcher’s silence about his own alleged misconduct is perhaps typical of the culture of the con evo world.  If that is not in fact a repeated pattern right across the network, then we need to hear more from the current leaders.  They need to speak frankly and openly about what they knew.  If they do not, then their reputations and their place in the history books will be much diminished.  The public will assume complicity in a massive event where because of silence, abuse and sadistic cruelty were permitted to flourish.

In naming some of the institutions which have some corporate responsibility for the scandals of John Smyth, I realise that, in the secular world, a scandal of this dimension would require resignations and real accountability to be shown. So far, as others have commented, not a single church person has lost a job or been officially reprimanded for the appalling failures for which the Archbishop is now apologising. What seems to be happening now, as before, is that in the face of scandals and past misdeeds of church members, nothing is ever done to make a difference, apart from a wringing of hands and expressions of regret. Individuals have failed, but I feel the greater crime has been the corporate one. I do not know what it is like to be a part of one of the named institutions which has manifestly covered up immorality and crime.  It must, in fact, be appalling to be guilty of knowing dark secrets and having done nothing to bring them to light.  The names of the wealthy trustees of the mission charity supporting Smyth in Africa are well known, but they have never come forward, as far as I know, to reveal their part in the drama or express regret for it.

I wish that it were possible for the NST to do this gargantuan task. It cannot and will not.  Perhaps the promise to do something impossible is a ploy aimed at calming, temporarily, the anger of all those who have suffered at the hands of John Smyth.  I end my somewhat angry rant about the Archbishop’s statement without any clear suggestions for what can be done to resolve the promise of something which is impossible to do.  Perhaps on his return from sabbatical, the Archbishop should help the situation by setting up a response to the Smyth scandal which is possible to accomplish in such a way that would help survivors.

One of the important tasks for a parish priest, or anyone involved in Christian instruction, is to help a learning group, like a confirmation class, to deal with symbolic language.  Leaving symbolic language to interpret itself without any explanation is a recipe for confusion in a young mind.  We have recently been celebrating the feast of the Ascension.  This event, told in profoundly symbolic language, cries out for interpretation so that we can make some sense of the text and what it is trying to tell us.  We also need to explore the heavily symbolic language of other parts of the Bible, including the Book of Revelation.  Young minds can, I believe, cope with the insight that says that symbolic language is a distinct way of communicating truth.  In using it we are not committing ourselves to a belief that heaven is somewhere above the clouds.  Some conservative teaching about the Bible seems to force the young person to believe that there is no other of dealing with symbolic language.  It has to be either literally true or false.  I have not come across any conservative teaching which explores a more nuanced way of approaching the issue of symbols in Scripture.  Binary ways of thinking seem to be built into the conservative approaches to the Bible.  Such dogmatic assumptions and beliefs by a whole swathe of conservative Christians will lead to an insistence that the story of Jesus ascending into the sky (like Elijah before him) has to be believed as a physical event in front of eyewitnesses.  Liberal Christians want to affirm that the language about God and his self-revelation is not always told in the language of historical fact.  Quite often, the language of symbols is used to evoke truth and divine reality which defy the use of words.  Factual statements we call scientific represent a genre of discourse which only works in certain settings.  The important issue for us now is to help our fellow Christians to know that there are alternative understandings to the notion of Jesus literally ascending into a cloud.  We are not required to follow the ancient writers in their ideas about the nature of the universe and the precise physical location of the Risen /Ascended Christ.

Teaching about symbols and the way that they can communicate truth to us in the Bible and elsewhere, is, I believe, a vital part of Christian formation. One of the privileges of my own theological formation was to spend 10 months among the Orthodox in Greece and elsewhere.  I learnt many things through this exposure to a different cultural form of Christianity. Perhaps the most important thing that I learned was the ability to approach truth without depending on the analytic tools of the 18^th century Enlightenment.  An Orthodox worshipper does not come to church to listen to intellectual sermons. He/she comes to see.  Church is a place for religious contemplation through the use of the eyes.  Truth is represented largely through visual symbols.  Venerating an icon and watching the highly visual drama of the Liturgy are the core means of accessing spiritual reality and the Divine mystery.  Such a way of experiencing the Divine is not somehow superior to our cultural heritage.  It is simply different.  The traditions of the Enlightenment of course have penetrated much of modern secular Greek thought but the value of symbols as a way to encounter deeper reality remains intact within the theological traditions of Orthodoxy.  Many in the West are drawn to this contemplative style of approaching truth.  It is a way that bypasses the dry logical methods of Western rationalism.   There are other areas of knowledge where these Western methods of knowing seem to fall short.  We know from ordinary human experience that certain important human realities cannot be embraced by the language of logic or proof. Merely to observe a mother and child interacting on a park bench, is to grasp a reality that cannot be fully contained in the language of a precise verbal formulae. Love, a word which embraces human relationships as well as a fundamental attitude to the world, clearly defies definition.

It is my belief that the task of teaching all Christians, young and old, how to relate better to the rich symbolic language of hymns and scripture readings is a vital task. Trying to fit every visual, symbolic description into the straightjacket of scientific categories is clearly impossible and unhelpful. Every mature Christian should have grown out of the need to hold on to the idea that every statement is some kind of literal description of reality. We should be proud of the fact that the Christian faith and scriptures provide us with a portal into a world of profound truth.  We describe this reality as transcendent and it is certainly beyond our ability to measure or control it. To tell a young teenage candidate that the word symbol is an entrance into a deeper richer world is to help them.   If he/she is ever left with the idea that statements in Scripture are either literally true or false, that is immensely impoverishing. The word symbol means, literally, something which has been thrown together or connected with another reality.  The word suggests absence and presence at the same time. We could, in many cases, make a translation of the word by calling it a door. The Ascension season hymns on Sunday morning were especially full symbolic language.  Jesus is the one who ascends to be with his Father in a place of light and glory. How we deal with this language is enormously important.  We need this language of Ascension, but we do not solve the problem of what it means by insisting that we take it literally.

The week we are in, is now building up to the feast of Pentecost. While I was reflecting during the Sunday morning’s service, I found myself making a contrast between the symbolic language of Ascension and the relatively concrete description of the coming of the Holy Spirit. Of course, we find symbolic expressions in the Acts account of the coming of the Spirit. We have the clearly symbolic language of tongues of flame.  But this choice of words communicates physical realities, energy, power and heat.  These words also communicate the concrete ideas of inspiration and insight.  Explaining the importance of the Pentecost feast to our imaginary confirmation candidate, we might want to emphasise two key, but not necessarily religious, ideas of power and inspiration.  Both these words have a currency in everyday experience as well in our moments of religious insight.

If I were having to teach about the feast of Pentecost to a congregation, I would attempt to tap into the everyday experiences of each of those listening.  I would ask about their experience when they are consciously looking for guidance to do the right thing in a difficult situation. Putting aside the language of flames, wind and excitement, I would ask them to relate to the other more mundane ideas that maybe are evoked in them by the symbolic descriptions of the Holy Spirit.  Most people can describe what inspiration means to them at a personal level.  It has to do with the unexpected surge of energy and insight comes to us when we are open to receive it. Obviously, the word will have a variety of meanings, only some of which will be spiritual.  But I suspect that when people do grapple with the word, they will find themselves not far from what Christians are talking about when they refer to the one who is the Lord, the Giver of Life. It is certainly important to link the human experience of inspiration with the whole encounter we associate with prayer and the search for spiritual guidance.

The teaching about the Spirit also brings us once more to consider the word power in a human context.   We talk about power a great deal on this blog but often in its negative manifestations. But, of course, there are positive forms of human power.  It is because of this power from the ‘Giver of Life’ that we understand ourselves to be both human and. at the same time, spiritual creatures. When I reflect on my own spiritual experience of power, it will link into the extraordinary way that that I have sometimes found the resources to do a particular work or overcome a particular problem which seemed at first impossible. Coming through difficult experiences and finding that I had said words which I did not know I possessed, has made me realise that the power, the energy and inspiration of the Holy Spirit is quite often around us and in us. Of course, Pentecost is a festival mainly for the whole Church.  But it is also a festival for each individual Christian as he/she struggles to move forward along the Christian path. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, can be interpreted to say that we believe God is acting through his Spirit in us when we open ourselves to him.  The language of Pentecost according to Scripture is close to the language of twenty first century experience.  It is the language of power and inspiration, guiding us and leading us through life.

My insight last Sunday morning was see that this season of Ascension-tide begins with the most densely symbolic part of Scripture and ends with the practical language of inspiration and power at Pentecost. Christians are the heirs to both forms of teaching, the symbolic language and the more grounded and practical. The symbols of Ascension appeal to our imagination and our capacity to see God through the medium of highly visual language. The more concrete account of the day of Pentecost brings us back to the way that some ordinary human experience intersects with the divine.  Pentecost may indeed be the feast of the birth of the Church, but it is also the feast of individual divine inspiration and power.  It takes areas of our human experience and gives to them some access to an encounter with the divine.  Through the Holy Spirit we are allowed to experience the highest expression of power, as our life is linked to the vitality and Spirit of God himself.

In the late summer of 1972 I was in the Syrian city of Aleppo searching for a hotel room.   Why I was there is a complicated saga, but it was a combination of a fascination for the so-called Dead Cities of Northern Syria and an interest in the Christian minorities in the country.  At the time, aged 27, I regarded myself as young, and thus able to put up with discomfort and squalor in the places where I stayed.  Getting to Lebanon and Syria had been an expensive business, so the money available for hotels was limited.  I finally arrived at a suitably cheap establishment where the cost of a night’s slumber was 25 pence.  For that I had to sleep in a dormitory under sheets of doubtful cleanliness. Three years later I visited the same city, and I went again in search of the Hotel Ugarit as before.  When I arrived I found that something had changed.  It was not the hotel that had changed, but the change was in me.  Over the three intervening years, my tolerance for cheap seedy hotels had vanished.  I needed a room to myself and the possibility of washing in warm water.  Between the ages of twenty-seven and thirty, at some level, I had developed an adult need for comfort and cleanliness.  I was no longer the young man putting up with squalor; I was now the adult.

Everyone who has reached their thirties will have different memories, but most will remember a moment when they realised they had become properly adult.  The experience of being grown-up is, of course, a very subjective thing, but the majority who have passed through their twenties, would recognise that, whatever the law says, eighteen is only the beginning of the process of becoming adult.  The social psychologists in this century have invented a new expression, emerging adults, to describe the period between legal adulthood and the full acceptance of adult responsibilities.  We are talking about such things as the responsibilities of a mortgage, parenthood and a place of full independence from parents.  Different writers mark out this transitional phase in various ways but the eleven years between 18 and 29 is a typical suggestion.  Whatever period we reckon is needed for making the change from adolescent to full adulthood is probably not important.  What is important is for all of us to recognise how much is changing during these ‘emerging’ years.  We could say that the process of growing up is going on at equal speed as it had done when we were teenagers. 

The parents of small children are often nostalgic for the stage of childhood that has just passed.  The putting ‘away of childish things’ is something that parents often feel more upset about than the children themselves.  We do, however, recognise helping children to negotiate each stage of growing older as a vital part of parenting.  The needs of a nine year old are different from the needs of a seven year old.  The wise parent is constantly having to adapt to the new reality of an endless series of changes which accompany every stage of growth.  There is a constant sense of newness as the child grows older; some changes seem to happen over a matter of weeks. 

I begin this blog piece with a preamble about growth and change as an introduction to a serious question about the way the Church responds to the young adults in its care.  Emerging adults are an area of apparent success for the Church, especially in the university towns of Britain.  There are many congregations where the average age seems to be about 28.  It is clear from such statistics that churches do have an appeal for many young people, especially as they enter this transitional period between 18 and the early twenties.  The first question that arises is whether the Church is successfully serving this cohort as it grows older.  Is it truly sensitive to the numerous but subtle changes that are taking place throughout the twenties into the thirties? 

It seems clear that many young people enter their twenties with a readiness to trust leaders and accept their parental style of oversight.  There is enough left of childhood compliance to follow the wishes and desires of older people.  The result is that many of them will also readily accept the authoritative style of many con evo churches.  Among other things, evangelical churches emphasise the unchanging word of God, together with the need for obedience to the authority of appointed leaders.  If this obedience is not a problem for eighteen year olds, there may be an increasing resistance by older members.  Here I refer to the 25+ group.  They may well chafe at conservative teaching on sexual matters as they move through their twenties. At this stage, they may well be letting go of a variety of dependence habits in other areas of life.  From a developmental perspective, we would expect that a twenty-five year old would begin to question the certainties of other aspects of conservative Christian teaching.  There are signs that this does indeed happen, particularly as many alternative sources of information are freely available to these young people.

In the past, week two pieces of information have come my way to bring this issue of the Church serving the needs of emerging adults to the fore of my thinking.  In the first place there was the article by Charles Foster about the effect of Iwerne/Titus camps on generations of public-school boys.  As part of the commentary there seemed to be a consensus that the teaching of the camps had created a persistent nostalgic longing in these young men.  Rather than looking forward to adulthood with its ever greater intellectual and spiritual opportunities for service and growth, there was a regressive pull back to the golden days of teenage summers at the camps.  Christianity in other words was being experienced as a force for nostalgic regression and immaturity.  Some would describe it as a recipe for infantilisation.

Alongside the apparent immaturity of many con evo males who used to attend Iwerne summer camps, another serious issue has come to my attention.  I received an email from a woman this week who has been attending a church plant for the past 15 years.  She joined the plant at the beginning of its life and for a year or two everything seemed to glow with the light of newness and love.  The minister was the same age as the young congregation and this at first seemed appropriate.  But it was less appropriate when what was required of the minister was maturity and wisdom to help sort out relationship breakdowns among the closely (too close?) knit community.  Without the skills of mediation to offer, such fallings out merely festered until one or other of the aggrieved parties walked away.  The implications of leaving a congregation of this kind were severe for this one individual I shall call Joan. Joan was leaving behind her entire social network and all her emotional means of support.  London is not a good place to be alone, but the church plant had held the implicit promise never to allow her to be in that situation.  As with a cult she had bought the ‘package’ of an enveloping social community which would be there to carry her into the future, spiritually and socially.  Worse still, by leaving the church, she came face to face with the appalling realisation that the church had kept her in exactly the same place, in terms of her maturity, as where she had been when she entered fifteen years before.  In other words, instead of growing up and adapting to the world in the myriad ways that other emerging adults in society were doing, she was, relatively speaking, still immature and ill-equipped to deal with life outside the church.  The Church plant culture had successfully taught her habits of intellectual and social dependence on others.  She had been deprived of the insight that, as the years sped by, she was changing along with her emotional, intellectual and social needs.  The reasonably intelligent woman of thirty or thirty-five has quite different social and spiritual needs from the twenty three year old.  My light-hearted personal anecdote at the beginning was meant to illustrate just how quickly the needs and requirements of a young person can change over a short timespan.

The con evo churches that we have been hearing a lot about in recent weeks have enormous responsibility to care for the young people who come to them.  They also have the task of preventing the kind of tragedy that Joan is suffering.  Teaching an unchanging Gospel in a way that makes no provision for the evolving intellect and personality of a young person is a kind of enforced infantilisation.  It may be appropriate for children and very young adults, but it is not sound educational practice for those in their later twenties and thirties.  The inflexibility of message and teaching found in many conservative congregations is, arguably. a kind of intellectual abuse.  What we know, what we feel and what we understand is in a constant state of flux as we grow older.  Trying to pretend otherwise is an act of emotional cruelty.  I am reminded of the custom within China up till the end of the 19^th century of binding the feet of girls and young women.  This is a kind of parable of a belief system that is in denial of the fact that the human mind and body are for ever changing and growing.   To say, as many Christian teachers do, that ‘my teaching is the true everlasting, unchanging Gospel’, is a kind of blasphemy   Teaching, social learning and spiritual growth all need to be, as far as possible, age and maturity appropriate.  Is the leader also using the ideal of a perfect community as a way of bringing a group together so that they can serve his narcissistic needs for domination?    My liberal background makes me instantly nervous when a church leader claims to be teaching the only true gospel and that everyone, regardless of age and maturity, can flourish in this uniquely safe environment.  They do not.  The inconvenient fact is that the uniqueness of each of us, the differences of our growth and understanding mean that we will always need to find churches and spiritual settings of infinite variety.  Despotic teaching is a kind of abuse.  Those who internalise the idea that there is only one expression of truth are trapped into an immaturity which has life-long consequences.  They are trapped and unhappy in a place that damns them if they stay and damns them if they leave.  Like Joan, poor pastoral sensitivity has put them in a place of emptiness and near despair.

From time to time, I feel myself drawn back to books which have, in different ways, been crucial in changing the way I think about religious themes.  After spending a couple of years thinking and writing about fundamentalism and charismatic phenomena in the 90s, I was still unable to come up with a psychological theory which offered some insight to explain the dynamics of what I was seeing.  Around 2005 I came across the work of Len Oakes.  He is an Australian scholar who wrote an important book in 1997, Prophetic Charisma:  The Psychology of Revolutionary Personalities.  Almost immediately I became captivated by his key thesis. The central idea of the book is that there are sometimes connections to be noted between the mysterious power and skills of certain leaders in the religious charismatic world and the profile of an individual who suffers from a clinically defined narcissistic personality.  When I am speaking about such a personality, I need to emphasise that most of what I am describing here is something at one end of a wide spectrum of behaviours.  Many of these are not problematic. The word narcissism on its own is not a diagnosis of any kind and It is quite often a part of simply being human.  It only becomes a problem when we see it in its pathological manifestations. Oakes’ own interest in the topic came about through his own need to understand a charismatic group in the 1970s of which he had been a member. At some point he changed his role within that community from being a member to becoming a student and chronicler of the dynamics of his group.  His book eventually became a study of charismatic religious leaders from a variety of traditions, including his own, over a period of some 20 years.

When I was writing my own study of Christian fundamentalism and charismatic groups in the 1990s, this word narcissism appeared nowhere in my vocabulary or understanding.  I knew the word but at that time the pioneering work of Heinz Kohut and Otto Kernberg in the 1970s was unknown to me or anyone else I knew. These two scholars were, between them, laying the foundations for the then new category of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  This reached the wider public as a category of mental disorder in the 3^rd Edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual published in 1980.  Since that time, the concept of narcissism has grown from a fairly narrowly defined clinical term within the psychoanalytic literature to become a common word used to describe behaviours which are in many cases harmless.  Our own use in this blog piece will follow that of Oakes.  His observations tend to be concerned with the pathological toxic examples of narcissism, thus following closely Kohut’s case studies. This categorising was embedded in some quite dense and complex psychoanalytic ideas.  These conceptualisations have, so far, stood the test of time and even those who disagree with him still use Kohut’s insights as a starting point. 

 When we talk about religious charisma, we are confronting the mysterious phenomena by which some Christian leaders have an almost magical power over their followers.  We find it difficult to understand what is going on in a Toronto Blessing type of event.   The happenings are simultaneously fascinating and, at the same time, a little frightening. It is not just, of course, in religious settings that we observe such charisma.  It can appear in political or indeed in any institutional setting.  Oakes takes the word and begins to demystify much of it as he links it, with the help of Kohut’s theories, with the grandiosity, the messianism and the enormous self-confidence that are key manifestations of classic narcissistic behaviour.  

Kohut originally saw a link between charisma and chronic narcissism, when he noticed how charismatic leaders were similar to a group of his patients who possessed severe narcissistic symptoms. His patients were not, of course, capable of any leadership role, but they possessed, like charismatic leaders, an enormous self-confidence together with an extraordinary lack of self-doubt. They also felt themselves to be invincible, possessing totally unrealistic and grandiose fantasies about themselves and their powers. These typical symptoms of the narcissistic personality in its clinical manifestation also acted like a shell, covering over an extremely fragile core.  The psychoanalytic treatment for this disorder had as its aim the restructuring and rebuilding of this core personality, one which had been hollowed out by adverse childhood experiences.  But, even as he was treating these patients, Kohut could not help but notice the way that, in many cases, they possessed acute almost psychic sensitivity to others.  This was however a negative sensitivity.  It worked in such a way to enable the narcissistic patient to manipulate other people to serve his (normally his) needs or purposes.  The other person was, in the process, becoming simply a source of potential psychological gratification for the patient. Thus, other people had one purpose, to be a kind of extension of the narcissist’s own ego.  It was only in and through exploiting and dominating others in this way that the narcissist felt himself alive.  In this way all his relationships were parasitic.  Dominance and control of others were a key part of the narcissistic personality.

Oakes uses these observations of Kohut about the narcissistic personality and its closeness to the characteristics of some possessors of charismatic gifts to form the heart of his study. His own experience of being a member of a cult had allowed him to see at close hand the typical external facets of narcissism, grandiosity and over-confidence.  These were combined with an inner emptiness and dependence on other people to feed and allow the narcissist to flourish. Oakes helps us a great deal by penetrating and rearticulating the dense prose of Kohut himself. Although Kohut was writing in English, his background and training was as a Freudian psychoanalyst in Austria. His English style is convoluted and quite hard to unravel. In a few pages of the book Prophetic Charisma, Oakes explains in fairly straightforward language the key ideas of narcissism and its origins. He tells us how a child, according to Kohut’s theory, with the wrong kind of parenting can develop the distortions of the severe narcissistic personality. Narcissism, in its clinical version, emerges as the result of the child receiving either too little or too much parental attention. At the risk of over-simplification, we have explained to us by Kohut and Oakes, how there is an optimum way for a child to build, with the help of parents, a secure sense of self. When there is inadequate attention, the child has a desperate sense of loss.  At the other extreme there may be too much attention, depriving a child ever of experiencing frustration and learning to deal with it.  This can lead to the child being unable to handle the inevitable setbacks of real life where things do not go his way as an adult.  Both these distortions of parenting can lead to the kind of clinically disordered behaviour we associate with narcissistic illness.  Needless to say, the word has greatly expanded out of its original clinical setting to signify almost any kind of self-centred behaviour.  This fact that the word can simultaneously refer to a clinical condition as well as ordinary human self-absorption means that we have to use the word with great care.  But, however we use the word, every use of it owes something to the clinical examples of it set out by Heinz Kohut before his death in 1981.

Why do I find this book by Oakes so compelling? It is because it enabled me, at a time when I was puzzling over the dynamics of charismatic churches, to see how a therapeutically trained writer could account for some of the strange goings-on in that world.  It is not all bad. Some people might actually benefit from being with a charismatic leader for a limited time.  There are good things to be learned from the vision, the energy and even the giftedness that comes out as insight and gifts of healing. Problems arise when such relationships are allowed to go on for too long.  Charisma has a life-cycle of its own and eventually all parties become disillusioned and damaged so that we can talk about a kind of narcissistic collapse.

One of the things that I find fascinating is that, although there has been this breakthrough in the understanding of the dynamics of charisma, little seems to have penetrated into church circles to encourage critical reflection on the powerful institutions in the Church which practise this style of church life.  The work of Len Oakes should be taught compulsorily in places like theological colleges and in in-service training for senior clergy leaders.  The language of narcissism also has something to say to other safeguarding disasters we have seen over the past fifteen years.  Although Oakes has focussed on the charismatic styles of church life, pathological narcissism is clearly found in the dynamics of other parts of the Church.  Oakes’ study could be used to unlock and interpret many of the disasters and dysfunctions of leadership that we see in our churches.  In some of the major parishes of the Church of England narcissistic processes are obvious, if one has the eyes and insight to see them. The phenomenon of self-satisfied influential leaders standing in pulpits receiving the acclaim of dutiful acolytes is all too common.  Whenever a clergy leader feels himself to be the target of idealising dynamics, that is a time for self-examination and reflection.  A great deal of the observable power operating in the church is sustained by what we can describe as pure narcissism.  There is much more to be said on this theme, but space prevents further discussion here.  It is sufficient to conclude by suggesting that much of what we see as power in the church is less than healthy for those involved.  It will always be unhealthy to be caught up in narcissistic cycles of self-importance and grandiosity.   The stories of Jonathan Fletcher and Peter Ball can both be re-told with an emphasis in each case of strong narcissistic dynamics at work.   That fact alone should alert us to the need to understand the crucial importance of Len Oakes’ work. 

by Charles Foster

At the revue at the end of the Iwerne camps we sang a sentimental song:

‘Roll out those lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer, at Iwerne Minister with [David] Fletcher & Co….It won’t be long before we all pack up and go.’

Our wistfulness was misconceived. We never did pack up and go. Or, rather, the lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer went with us wherever we went, as the Ark went with the Israelites.

That’s how we liked it. Iwerne was great. We were fed lasagne by willowy lady helpers, from whose ranks we were expected to select our brides – the dams of the next generation of the Elect. And the senior officers fed us with a few theological formulae – mostly from 19th century America rather than 1st century Palestine.

For budding boys wrestling with the complexities of evolving personality and sexuality, and fearfully though dimly aware of a seething jungle of nuance outside the camp gates, the simplicity was intoxicating. Assent to A, B, and C, stay out of your girlfriend’s knickers, never, ever stray beyond the camp gates, and all would be well in this world and the next. Iwerne would look after you. It held the keys of death, hell, and the merchant bank of your choice.

No wonder we stayed. It looked like a fantastic deal. We treasured our badges of membership: the inflections of the voice, the uniform, the allusions, the delicious acronyms which confounded the state-schooled heathen. We listened to camp talks every Sunday in the Iwerne churches. Whatever the season, and whether the church was in London, Oxford, Cambridge, or beyond the edge of the mapped world in somewhere like Durham, the sermon was always really in summery rural Dorset, because our God could do what He liked with time and space, and His throne was near Blandford Forum and his season was the summer. Every week, happily and wonderfully, we heard the same talks, by the same people, using the same illustrations and the same jokes, all delivered by voices just like ours. We no more expected the content of a talk to be altered than we expected the text of Mark’s gospel to be updated. We believed in the infallibility of the talks as originally given. We’d have been outraged by any change.

What was being preached, of course, was The Gospel.  We knew this because we’d been told it, with unimpeachable authority, in Dorset. We knew too that whatever was not preached by one of us was not the Gospel, and therefore suspect. We alone, having received the Gospel at the Dorset well-spring, were its true custodians. We alone knew how to enunciate it.

How did one get to see God? By listening to the pastiche of the Bible encoded in the formulae, which in turn were encoded in us and in our culture.And here the real danger began, for, we came to believe, one could not distinguish between message and messenger. As individuals we fell short. But the culture of which we were part did not. How could it? It was part of the Gospel itself. So if and insofar as we were good, enculturated Iwerne chaps, to see God we had only to look in the shaving mirror.

‘Iwerne is my church’, Jonathan Fletcher is said to have said. Everything about Iwerne’s self-containedness and suspicion of non-Iwernism suggests that by this he really meant ‘Iwerne is the church.’ Think about that. The church isn’t the eternal community of the redeemed, serenaded and guarded by hosts of angels and archangels, the bride of Christ, boasting of its extravagant poverty, its hospitals, and its martyrs. It’s a set of boys’ camps and the middle class cabal to which campership gives life membership. If you’re a leading light in that church – as Jonathan Fletcher certainly was – what are you saying about yourself by saying that Iwerne is the church?  

Twitter now knows the culture as #Fletcherculture, and uses the word ‘narcissism’ to denote one of its most toxic components. That usage is accurate, but it should be understood that at the root of the narcissism is a conflation of Gospel and Self which occurs because of a conflation of Self and culture. The victim-blaming we’ve seen in the aftermath of the Fletcher scandal occurs at least partly because to criticise the person is to criticise the Gospel/Culture embodied in that person. Mock the plummy inflections, and you’re mocking the voice of God. Criticise his anointed, and you’re denouncing Him.

Yet more fundamental than our tribal and theological loyalties was our loyalty to the innocence of the Dorset summer, in all its suffocating, liberating simplicity. To betray the culture was to betray the Gospel, and so to be damned. It was also to betray our own childhood. To live in the Iwerne culture was consciously to hang onto childhood; to make a daily decision to arrest our theological, spiritual and intellectual development. And to do so in the name of God, because God met with us in Dorset in an unmistakable, unmediated way, handing each of us our life-plan. We followed St Paul, choosing to remain in the state we were in when we were called. Paul was talking about matrimonial status: we took him to refer to childhood. We were theologically infantile because we were actually infantile, and remained actually infantile because we were theologically infantile.

All this came naturally to us, for the catastrophe of boarding school had left us all emotionally stunted (see Mark Stibbe’s brilliant and heartbreaking Home at Last on this, and Joy Schaverien’s more academic Boarding School Syndrome: The psychological trauma of the ‘privileged’ child). We were only too glad to hear not only that our stuntedness was not pathological, but that it was what God decreed.

I feel sorry for the Iwerne-ites, and for myself as one of them. But I feel even more sorry for the non-Iwerne-ites who go to their churches. It’s one thing to be fossilized in one’s own past; it’s quite another to be fossilized in someone else’s – to live, vicariously and unconsciously, the perpetual childhood of your vicar, without even having the genuine comfort, enjoyed by him, of remembered cream teas. If you’re in an English Anglican Conservative Evangelical church there’s a sporting chance that, whatever your age, gender or background, you’re really a rather lost, constipated public schoolboy, but without the perks.

The senior officers were fond of quoting Luther’s alleged words at us: ‘Here I stand….’ But where were they urging us to stand? In our own childhood, of course. In Dorset. Inside the camp. To this day our cosmic dramas are played out against a mental backdrop of leafy lanes, windsurfing in Poole harbour, tennis with the eternally bronzed Jonathan Fletcher, earnest walks round the playing field with the dormitory officer, games of ‘ragger’ (a game unique to Iwerne, for the unique Iwerne people we are), and the tuck shop (known, masonically, as the ‘Old Firm’). All our prayers are tightly focused, barked out in a martial voice, and kept short because David Fletcher hated long prayers.

The injunction ‘Stand!’, I now see, is, like so much Iwerne-speak, theological window-dressing for a defence of the culture: for a defence of ourselves, just the way we are. It’s engendered by fear. The status quo is fragile. Dissenters need to be vigorously suppressed. Iwerne Christianity is at its most muscular when it wields its cold shoulders. The culture and theology, being inseparable, are sacred. The childhood Gospel – the childish Gospel – must not be challenged. If it is, we know at some deep, unexamined level, it will fail. The Gospel is not a lion that needs to be unleashed, but a sickly pussy-cat that needs to be nursed.

Stand! You don’t go through the door of a Iwerne church wondering nervously where the tsunami of the Holy Spirit is going to leave you at the end of the service. If you’re doing the right thing you’ll be standing in exactly the same place at the end. Stand! You don’t expect a mystical, transformative encounter: you had that encounter once and for all, in person or by proxy, years ago in Dorset.

Stand! Stand in the camp, because if you don’t you’ll be like one of the ones outside; the outside where time flows, minds change, people grow up, and where there is real love, grief, mess, contingency and joy; where nothing worth having fits into a formula.

‘All reality is iconoclastic’, wrote C. S. Lewis. ‘The earthly beloved, even in this life, continually triumphs over your mere idea of her.’ Reality, that is, is process. It is an unfolding, as our lives, if they’re real, are meant to be an unfolding.God, as the ground of all being, smashes up the laughably inadequate ways in which we frame him or her (including the pronouns we use). This is wholly uncontroversial in all the historic Christian traditions – and (it sadly needs to be said) doesn’t begin to mean that one has to deny (for instance) the historicity of the resurrection, the literal, biological understanding of the virgin birth, or the possibility of immutable ontological facts or moral truths. But it is the antithesis of much conservative evangelical theology, whose connection with historic Christianity is often slender. It is particularly the antithesis of that iteration which whispers that God, like the dinosaurs in the cliffs of the Jurassic coast very near Iwerne, is petrified in our childhood, and that we therefore have to live in our childhood or our vicar’s in order to live a godly life.

Fletcherculture is a disease of both theology and psyche. But it doesn’t have to be terminal. Get the theology right, and the peculiar, peculiarly dangerous, and downright sacrilegious narcissism of Fletcherculture is much less likely.

[this should be read in conjunction with earlier article by Charles http://survivingchurch.org/2019/11/26/smyth-fletcher-iwerne-and-the-theology-of-the-divided-self-charles-foster/ ]

We have recently been watching one of the films on Netflix which takes as its background the political life of Korea.  In this Korean film, the main character is a scientist who, after a terrorist attack, finds himself president of the whole country.  Innocent of political life and devoid of ambition in this arena, he has to negotiate his way through the strong political forces in the country.  He also needs to make the decisions which he believes to be for the good of all, rather than for his personal benefit or that of a particular political faction. 

The confrontation between the rationality and objectivity of an independent technocrat and the experience of seasoned politicians, is the basic theme of the film.  All the experienced politicians know that holding on to their own and their party’s power is a major part of what they do.   The idea that there could be an honest broker in their midst, completely uninterested in personal power is a major challenge to the assumptions of the whole system.   Serving a country in a way that meets the democratic hopes of the people is, of course, held up as the ultimate end of government, but the reward for the successful politicians is also personal and institutional power.   Along the way there may have been ethical shortcuts, betrayals, dishonesty and even lying.  The unspoken question of the film is whether there can ever be technologies of government, uncorrupted by political power-games.  Do we always have to submit ourselves to be ruled by people who are motivated by a desire for influence and power?  Can there ever be such a thing as a ‘science’ of government?

When we talk about politics, whether it be in government, the Church or in any other organisation, we are referring to that messy overlap between the hoped-for flourishing of an institution and the personal ambitions of those who pull the levers within.  Politics will always be in some way linked to the process of gaining (or losing) power in an institution.  Many people can be motivated by the offer of power.  Many also firmly believe that they can hold it without succumbing to any of its dangerous seductions.  For others, power represents the opportunity of acquiring wealth.  At the national level currently in the UK, we are told that politics makes some individuals, such as Boris Johnson, poorer in the medium term.  Johnson was able to make far more money writing newspaper columns than the £150K he receives as head of the country.  In the longer term there are huge rewards to be obtained from book deals and speech fees, but these are not available in the here and now.  The rewards of high office do not include, in most Western democracies at any rate, instant wealth.  The evident corruption of former President Trump and his cronies is, hopefully, to be regarded as a rare exception to what we would like to think are the norms of political life among democracies in the West.

If instant wealth is not afforded to our rulers, we can allow that there are, in the short term, perks to be had which make up somewhat for the stresses of political responsibility.   We have already alighted on the single word, power.  Even without the promise of instant wealth, there are various ways of enjoying its possession.  There is the simple gratification of having people around you open doors, chauffeur your car, and generally pay attention to all your domestic needs.  Wherever you go, you become the centre of attention.  Such attention may be enjoyable; equally it may be a burden.  One thing is clear is that the experience of having this kind of power and being the centre of attention may change and corrupt the individual.  The personality becomes so used to being thought of as superior or special that when this flattery is no longer available there are withdrawal symptoms, similar to the withdrawal from an addictive drug.  This expectation of a constant supply of ‘feeding’ and adulation is an early indication of a narcissistic disorder. 

We need to go back one stage to this phenomenon of power and think about the way that it is enjoyed by those who possess it.  I find it helpful to think about power and its enjoyment along a continuum.  At one end there is the completely altruistic person whose only use of power is to achieve change and subsequent flourishing for a group of people. S/He enjoys the satisfaction and pleasure of a job well-done. To serve or love so that another may flourish is close to a definition of Christian love. This was the only reward sought by the non-political leader in the Korean film.  A leader who tirelessly works to take a country out of a crisis caused by war or economic collapse deserves the applause of those who benefit and the positive verdict of history.  This is precisely what we would like to see in all our politicians in Church and State or wherever they hold sway.  If only this were the norm.

Along the continuum are found those whose motives and actions are a mixture of altruism and selfishness.  Seldom are motives ever completely pure.   At the far end of the continuum of power, we see the malignant narcissist.  This is the individual who seems to be ‘milking’ every occasion as an opportunity for self-aggrandisement and the humiliation and exploitation of others.  In some cases, there seems to be a total absence of any concern for other people in the exercise of this power.   All we see is endless self-gratification and self-inflation.  To call those who operate at the exploitative end of the scale of narcissistic behaviour is to raise further issues.  Are they behaving this way because they ‘need’ the gratification that power provides to protect a fragile ego?  Alternatively, and more commonly, are they just enjoying the exercise of power because it is there.  Are they, in other words, what I call ‘situational narcissists?’ 

The spectrum/continuum we have described in the way power is used/misused, is observable right across the board.  We can observe both extremes in operation in places as diverse as schools, vicarages, company offices and bishops’ palaces.  Individuals may sometimes be observed moving down the spectrum. From originally using power only to serve others, they may find themselves over the year approaching the other end of the spectrum.  Here power is used typically to gratify the self at the expense of others.  When I mentioned my sketch idea in the last blog, I should also have suggested that theological students learn to recognise the narcissistic contaminants that creep into the use of power.  The question might be asked.  To what extent is power operating here in a way that serves the one who has it?  How should this use of power be described on a narcissistic spectrum?  Obviously there will be times when motivations are not obvious.  A desire to serve can be mixed up with an urge to satisfy self-needs.  But it is the wrestling with these questions that is important.  We repeat one issue that was mentioned last time.  It will normally be almost impossible to challenge the individual in a place of narcissistic power.  Alongside the power that is possessed to control an institution will be found the skilled use of tools to defend and deflect all challenges.  In short, the narcissist can make life very unpleasant for those who try to stand up to him/her.

The recent book that very powerfully describes the extreme abuses of power through narcissistic processes is one by Daniel Shaw, Traumatic Narcissism.  I mention this book especially to draw attention to the title.  It is a work that explores how the extremes of narcissistic behaviour can do immense harm.  Harm is caused by any abuser but also the hurt is enhanced by the bystander/leader with no insight into the processes at work in the abuse.  The abuse we meet sometimes in church settings is traumatic, even catastrophic.   There is plenty more to be explored in this area.  I am setting down a few pointers here for developing a set of categories that can be used when we see dysfunctional and exploitative leadership in a church setting. 

We began this blog by suggesting that politics is best thought of as the way leaders choose to deploy institutional and personal power.  With this understanding we can see that politics can be a much larger concept than just that found in the seat of government.  While politics and power in themselves are both neutral concepts, politicians in every setting will use power in any number of ways, depending on such things as psychological need or personal morality.  Politics needs the injection of other disciplines, like philosophy, ethics and economics to evaluate its workings and interpret what is going on.   These amateur attempts at analysis and commentary in this blog may help some of my readers to penetrate a little better in understanding the functioning and culture of church power.  I sometimes feel we are travelling down a dark tunnel with few lights to guide our understanding of the way power is deployed and experienced.   We all the time need better signposts to help us avoid completely floundering in incomprehension and confusion.  That is a dangerous place to be, not only for the individual but for the whole Church.