In many ways, the final 30 years of the 20th 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.
Not one part if the Church us run either effectively or in a Christian like manner given from experience protects paedophiles even those convicted in Court and receive Bishops support.
‘the final 30 years of the 20th century were a golden age to be a clergyman in the Church of England.’
For once, ‘clergymen’ is the right term here. The years from 1987 to 2000 were very difficult ones for clergywomen; and, prior to 1987, for deaconesses. The battles over the ordination of women left scars, particularly in dioceses like Manchester and Chichester where opposition was strong.
Moreover, the Church as a matter of deliberate policy almost always sides with the most senior person in any difficulty. Since women at that time were almost invariably in the junior position we found all the machinery lined up against us. There’s no way I’d want to go back to that time.
Yes. The secular, Western world was oriented away from treating women as equals in general. I worked in male dominated fields, and was often the only woman. So, “Good morning, lady and gentlemen” ….. I was a manageress, so people wanted to see the manager. I asked my staff to call me manager. And then I felt called to ministry, around 2000! It was never going to be easy! Things have improved, but nothing like enough.
I should added the word beneficed clergy. Life for curates could be awful and often was. This applied to the men as well as the women. Thanks for pointing out that the women got the short straw in those days as they suffered the double whammy.
I am a bit surprised that this post about the traumas caused by the CDM and the need for its replacement says nothing about the fact that both Sheldon and CECA have said that in the light of Sheldon withdrawing from active campaigning about the future shape of a new Clergy Misconduct Measure, they are both putting what weight they have behind the proposals put forward by the Ecclesiastical Law Society Working Party Report which I must own up to having chaired. There is now a thread on the Sheldon Hub where those interested in carrying forward Sheldon’s work can sign up and gain information and if they wish to can become involved.
The ELS Working Party spent the best part of a year with no presuppositions but seeking to draw on the resources of those who had “skills in theology, law and pastoral commons sense” and many of whom had seen and experienced the problems of the current CDM up close. We looked at what a new Measure should look like in some detail.
We wait to see the extent that the proposals that are to come to general Synod in July have borrowed from the ELS proposals and the extent to which they perpetuate the existing probelems.
The report can be found at
https://ecclawsoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Final-Report-of-Working-Party-Reviewing-the-Clergy-Discipline-Measure-2003-1.pdf
and there is a 2 page summary of it at https://www.sheldonhub.org/usercontent/sitecontentuploads/3/B23ED9116AF4CF45ED179D091F7E7AD6/els%202%20page%20summary%20final.pdf
Thanks. I may need a sit down and an augmented diet before I venture into that link. I’m already depressed by the evidence of what I see as wickedness and corruption. And I have just read an article on non-fungible tokens. We’re a long way from growing our own food and building our own shelters. Back in the Good Old Days at least you could go to the next door hut and thump the Bishop on the nose!
I’ve just read that article and even with 3 degrees and woking for my doctorate, it makes no sense at all; it just shows that the C of E is actually no less mad than the world at large, which actually may be a positive.
HI Peter, nice to see you here. I hope you and Susan are well?
Hi Janet; yes we are both well thank you. This is the first time I have been brave enough to put my head above the parapet on one of these web blogs. I have often seen your posts in a number of places and have enjoyed and sometimes been challenged by them, so keep up the good work.
Thank you for this update Peter. I hope people will read your comment to make themselves fully informed.
Has anyone managed to sketch a new leadership structure for the Church? Fiddling about with failing disciplinary mechanisms hardly seems to be achieving much.
Stepping back or taking a bird’s eye view seems essential, but it’s unclear whether anyone has seen the need for this.
It’s not just that people are leaving the C of E. Nor is it, and forgive me for mentioning the elephant in the room, that people are free to choose any one of a myriad of other Christian churches or even other faiths, but many are being put off ANY church for good.
How does the economy of Anglican life continue in this leadership vacuum?
It’s fairly obvious that there are power struggles going on. And territorial shifts. The most obvious of these is the rise of, for example, the HTB network. There are others. Power is amassed by concentration of committed people (and their financial wealth) to the extent that actual job titles carry less weight than someone’s position in one of these networks. Their ability to populate almost closed church buildings with new congregations and a vibrant colonisation of the parish churchmanship, go hand in hand.
I can accept that a new breed of bishop with an understanding of accountability for example, will gradually over time make small incremental changes in their own system. That’s nice and comfortable. Unfortunately it won’t be quick enough to reverse the decline, as far as I can see. I hope I’m wrong.
Faithfulness to Christ as He is revealed to us in the scriptures (that’s the only one we know) is the only way both leadership and membership can survive. Structural organisation, though well intentioned, will never be enough. Someone once said that the difference between politics and Christian life is that the one seeks to make safe rules, the other seeks to make safe people.
“CDMs against bishops normally seem to fail, no doubt, on the assumption that bishops are always above unworthy or unethical behaviour. ” I always read you to be informed but think this comment falls below your normally scrupulous regard for actual evidence. A significant problem with the old CDM (and the revision that is also way under might have been more stressed here I think) is that it simply didn’t distinguish between the ‘serious’/misconduct etc and more general concerns and complaints – or simply grudges.
The testimony of several survivors I know is that they submitted evidence of serious misconduct on the part of a bishop or archbishop, and had it dismissed with no reason given. In one prominent case CDM complaints were dismissed because they had exceeded the 1-year limit – but the delay had been at the request of police.
Stephen is aware of these cases, and this blog does show his usual regard for evidence. Sometimes the evidence is of a confidential nature and can’t be shared in a public forum, but it does exist. And I know of no survivor who thinks that if they bring a justified complaint against a bishop or archbishop, it will get a fair hearing.
Greetings Janet. I hope you know I share all your concerns (and Stephen’s) on the urgent need for processes that are just, prompt and fit for purpose. I accept the system is deeply flawed and the pain caused is intense.I know the stories and understand why levels of trust are so low at present. But I was responding to one quite specific sentence in the blog what was not evidence based as it stood. Please do not read it is somehow denying or devaluing the suffering and injustice that exists. I think my comment about a problem with CDM stands up and is based on fact. A number of CDMs against bishops are not sustained because they are not actually disciplinary matters (the D in CDM). What is needed is a better filter on complaints, concerns and issues being raised so they are managed appropriately. And it does not help to speak as if all bishops and those trying to manage the system are to blame and behaving wilfully wrongly and have no interest in doing this right. Furthermore there are bishops who themselves have been victims of these clunky and unwieldy processes.
Thank you for what you are doing … and to Stephen for his work this.
Thank you David. I think we are going to have to disagree, but due to confidentiality I cannot advance details of particular cases.
I do agree, however, that we need a better system for filtering complaints against clergy of all ranks, and for managing those that proceed.
I didn’t intend to imply that all bishops are behaving wilfully wrongly. I have a high opinion of several and have heard good things about others. I even have sympathy in some cases where there has been a safeguarding failure, because bishops are human and I can see how these things happen.
I have less confidence in ‘those trying to manage the system’, but I will name no names. The fact is that the system was set up, and is maintained, to protect those who are most senior in any instance (as was explained to me long ago by a diocesan comms officer). Where a bishop is sacrificed, it’s usually possible to see what political factors were at work. Thank God we are now beginning to see some changes in this, especially in the northern province, but it takes a long time to change the culture.
Meanwhile, I stand by my statement that none of the survivors I know believes that, however good and valid their case for disciplinary action against a bishop, it will get a fair hearing. Even when change in this regard begins to happen, it will take a long time to restore confidence.
I agree. I have written evidence of a disciplinary complaint against my Bishop. The reason I have not acted upon it is that I do not want the further upset of going through a process which will leave my Bishop gloating over his “escape” from a process designed to protect him. The recent public apology to the Bishop of Lincoln by Archbishop Welby confirmed me in my opinion. If a Bishop commits an offence and refuses to admit it, the result is an apology from the Archbishop of Canterbury. This would not happen in a court, and should not happen in the Church of England.
In Fiona Gardner’s book she states that only 2% of CDMs brought by the laity against a clergy member result in any action being taken (if you include formal rebuke as an action). I am one of the ‘successful’ 2%. The diocese tried every trick in the book to guilt me into dropping the clearly evidenced case – I had screenshotted the homophobic blog written about me. At no point did I get any indication, let alone paperwork of any kind, of complaints procedure or process at earlier levels at all – I had to push really hard to get any action. My experience of every clergy person I reported to was around covering it up and keeping me quiet. Given that the bishop of this diocese is on the national safeguarding team, I find this deeply concerning. The rector of my large inclusive church told me he’d never had a safeguarding problem in 15 years. The idea that a church with 350+ members, loads of activities in the building, under 18s work, refugees etc has had zero safeguarding problems over a decade and a half is of course a lie. But given that the C of E is a law unto itself I don’t think there is much hope of change. The thing that shocked me the most was the willingness of clergy to lie. This has been the most disempowering experience of my life – it does tell you a lot that I got more support from the police when I reported a homophobic blog than my ‘inclusive’ church.
So I meant to add – in my diocese the answer to your question is no. If a very black and white case with screenshotted evidence, where the person wishes to forgive AND see appropriate action taken to protect others, and is patient pleading with the rector over 5 months to take action before he says stop emailing me you’re hurting my feelings- and so brings a CDM which is eventually found in her favour, I just feel like there is no emotional intelligence either in the institution OR the individuals that have failed me before I decided the only thing to do was bring a CDM. Its also clear to me that there are zero processes in place for serious complaints, that would pick up safeguarding issues amongst other problems more quickly. As a professional for whom safeguarding has formed part of my previous roles, I am pretty shocked at the lack of embedded safeguarding culture in the c of e thst I have experienced. The culture is still one of ostracize, silence and demonise anyone who complains, no matter how reasonable and evidenced their complaint is. And no matter that their objective is to protect others. And you will of course be more likely to experience this if you are female, lgbtq, a person of colour or anyone else who experiences being othered by the institution.
I’m really sorry you had to go through this “#churchtoo” and impressed that you had the courage and energy to continue and eventually prevail despite the considerable and ugly opposition.
A church congregation is unlikely to be “inclusive” even if it likes to pretend to itself that it is. Which basically means that there are categories of people who aren’t really welcome as themselves, despite the welcome spiel.
The idea of challenging the leadership in church is still largely anathema. This isn’t just the clergy. There’s a whole ecosystem in many congregations of, dare I say it, hierarchical sycophancy, designed to maintain the status quo.
I had a friend on the worship team who had a lovely voice and engaging personality. She was increasingly accepted right up until the moment she announced she was marrying a woman. I’d left by this stage and wasn’t in touch socially either, outside of church life, but her subsequent treatment must have been very painful for her and dishonouring to the church.
Years ago I met another guy who’d come to our church group to check us out. He was a builder. I’d welcomed him in and tried to introduce him to people. Ultimately they just couldn’t be bothered to get to know him or include him. Wrong class?
Even when you apparently match fairly exactly to the existing demographic, I’m afraid there will be a bumpy ride if you step out of line.
Thanks for your valuable contribution.
Thanks for this Steve. I think ‘hierarchical sycophancy, designed to maintain the status quo’ is spot on, but I realise my original post did not clarify that the homophobic blog was written by a vicar. This is an abuse of power, as is the failure to listen to me and act to change when I reported. The church claims to be inclusive of lgbt people and has rainbows everywhere and a high media profile as such. It concerns me greatly that people will be attracted to this church thinking it will be a safe place for them as a self-promoting ‘inclusive’ space, when senior clergy behave like this and there is zero accountability or support when something happens to you – instead you are blamed for insisting on accountability and action. I have not experienced any issues at all with the few people in the laity I have chosen to come out to – this really is about the senior clergy in the church and the hierarchy of clergy in the diocese who cannot and will not accept reasonable challenge. The incident is now recorded by the police as a hate incident against the vicar’s name and against the church. This has given me quite an education in just how unsafe I am in the church, as it is exempt from Equality Law, as compared to all other areas of my life including my workplace. I only started coming out a few years ago, and this church is the first place I have tried to be out as a Christian, and it has been disastrously unsafe from start to finish. Unfortunately, it has been my worst experience of homophobia in my adult life. The community is also somewhere I used to teach, and so there are former colleagues and students of mine in the church congregation which adds to the problems of being outed without permission and slandered. All this does strange things to your faith. I really value Christian teaching, but of course I can’t take teaching from anyone who’s touched this case because of the lying I have witnessed. Theology degrees and orthodoxy are of no use whatsoever if this is the C of E’s accepted orthopraxy – because this kind of behaviour decimates trust and turns people’s hearts away from God.
What a shattering experience. I hope you have now found, or soon will find, places you feel safe.
Thanks Janet. It has caused me real trauma. I continue with many healing practices, and stay on the margins, far away from the horrors of the institutional C of E. It’s where new life is, and where the Spirit is. And it’s where Jesus spent his entire life, with those rejected by the religious leaders.
I couldn’t agree more. ‘Come to Jesus, outside the camp.’
A practical thought. I know a clergy person who was first told of the CDM against him by phone, while he was driving by speed on a dual carriageway, which put him and other drivers in danger. Such news should be given one to one in a quiet setting and not by phone.
I agree entirely that such news, if it has to be give, should be given face to face and when support is available. But what was your friend doing answering the phone while driving at speed on a dual carriageway?
I trust it was hands free!