A flurry of activity has occurred recently on the St Helen’s Bishopsgate website. This comes about as the Church authorities there respond to criticisms that their Rector, William Taylor, had held back over what he knew of John Smyth and Jonathan Fletcher. To remind my readers, Jonathan Fletcher was the subject of an investigation by 31:8, the safeguarding organisation. 31:8, in their investigation, which appeared last month, reported that Fletcher had a wide influence in the con evo world and that some of this personal power was used abusively and destructively against individuals. John Smyth is still being investigated by Keith Makin, but the broad outlines of his story are known. For around four years between 1978 and 1982, Smyth possessed a cult-like hold over a group of young men, including the young Taylor who was a student in Cambridge after attending Eton. He was the subject of three episodes of beating in the garden shed in Winchester in the summer and winter of 1981.
The open letter to the congregation from the St Helen’s churchwardens strongly refutes the claim that their Rector knew anything untoward about the abusive behaviour of Jonathan Fletcher until February 2019. They appeal to the findings of a law firm, Edward Connor Solicitors, who had investigated whether or not Taylor had knowledge of Fletcher’s activities at an earlier period. They concluded that he did not. A parallel pattern of complete ignorance of the facts is also reported for Archbishop Welby in respect of John Smyth before late 2013. Some of the speculation which had led onlookers to a contrary conclusion was built on the fact that both Taylor and Welby were moving in circles of people who definitely did know. In Taylor’s case there is also an acknowledged bond of friendship with Fletcher. There is in addition a widely reported claim that Fletcher was ‘marched off’ a Iwerne camp in the summer of 2017. Such an event could not have happened unless there was authority from leaders within the constituency approving the action. Rumours are also bound to proliferate over the fact Taylor has said almost nothing in public about the known facts of the Fletcher scandal during the period from June 2019 – June 2021. Silence by a prominent leader, who knows an accused person following the revelation of a public scandal, is not a good look. Taylor has known Fletcher since his school days through the Iwerne network and, in addition, Taylor has also been the de-facto leader of the whole conservative Christian constituency since around 2013. We might also have expected some open expressions of regret and apology from him in June 2019 when the Daily Telegraph story first broke. It is hardly surprising that some people have come to believe that this silence from him and other conservative leaders are attempts to bury scandal from public view. Two years is long time to wait for a public response to a major church scandal by one of its notable leaders and spokesmen.
The new revelation in the churchwardens’ letter is that Taylor was, as a young adult, a victim of John Smyth’s beatings and its accompanying theology (he refers to it as a cult). This evokes for me the image of a personality with two stages of self-expression. The first personality is that of the young man, the victim and sufferer of Smyth’s malevolent intentions. The other personality is the one that appears at the point when the influence of Smyth is finally overcome. At this point the moral awareness and responsibility of the young Taylor changes to being that of an active responsible agent. Anyone looking on would have felt deep compassion for the first young personality, still under the thrall of Smyth. In the straight jacket of pain and corrupt Christian ideas, Taylor was, for a time at any rate, a victim of something toxic and horrible. But the young Taylor seems to have passed through that victim period as well as can be expected. After five years in the army, he was able to proceed to ordination training and ordination. At some point Taylor adopted the new personality which we can describe as that of the survivor rather than the victim. Only he can say when that moment may have occurred. When in a state of victimhood, the focus would have been on raw survival and his own healing. All his moral decisions would rightly have promoted his own well-being. As part of the process of recovery, Taylor would first have had to process the toxic teaching of his one-time mentor/abuser, especially in the light of the new pastoral responsibilities for the spiritual health of others. One awareness that would now belong to him was an understanding of the dangers of the cultic bond that had been forged between him and Smyth. Once Taylor had completed his transition from victim to survivor, we now would hope to see him giving real attention to stop what had happened to him happening to anyone else. This is where the story is incomplete. We are left with a series of questions. I know nothing of Taylor’s actual record in the safeguarding realm, but I am aware of occasions when his potential influence might have radically changed the Smyth story. On his appointment as Rector of St Helen’s Bishopsgate in 1998, Taylor obtained a position of great influence in the Church of England and within the con evo constituency. Subsequent organisational changes in that network have been driven by him personally. I understand that the ReNew constituency has come into being largely as the result of his vision and energy. Since the retirement of Jonathan Fletcher in 2013, Taylor has been considered by many as the most influential individual in the conservative Anglican network. My questions to Taylor are the following.
- Did you suspect back in the 80s and since that that there might have been, apart from yourself, other survivors and victims of Smyth that needed help?
- Did it at any stage worry you that those who enabled Smyth to go to Africa and allowing him to live there, were putting the lives and souls of young men in physical and spiritual danger? Did you have any knowledge of the financial arrangements (the Colmans) that enabled the Smyth family to disappear from Britain?
- Why did you not help us bring this all to light sooner – there was no necessity to “ out yourself” ? indeed I understand that some who knew or strongly suspected your victim status were very very careful to respect your privacy.
The letter from the churchwardens of St Helens is designed to make us feel compassion for Taylor as a Smyth victim. I, however, have indicated that I see two separate personalities for Taylor. One is indeed the Smyth victim aged late teens and early twenties. For him I have compassion and sadness at what he had to endure at the hands of John Smyth. But there is another persona for Taylor. Here is the Taylor more or less fully recovered from the early bad experiences and now able to accept the privileges and responsibilities of power and leadership. While he may still be referred to as a survivor of Smyth, one cannot treat him any more with kid gloves when there are aspects of the use of his power that need to be challenged in the present. This Smyth survivor is, we trust, recovered from the spiritual and emotional battering he received 40 years ago. We must be allowed to ask these direct questions because he is now a powerful adult leader with the capacity to make a difference. The questions are being asked by an individual who believes that the current abuse trials of the Church of England could have been dealt with far better if everyone, Archbishops downwards, had listened to their consciences rather than fighting to protect reputations and institutions. Since the Channel 4 programme in Feb 2017 about John Smyth, there have been a chorus of voices asking questions. It has taken a long time for institutional silence to give way to the beginnings of accountability and openness. William Taylor and St Helen’s are an influential part of the whole and they must not only do the right thing but be seen to be doing the right thing. The accusations of secrecy and dishonesty can be levelled at every part of the Church. It is not merely a con evo problem. It is rather a problem for all institutions. As long as institutional secrecy and dishonesty pervade the Church, the process of continued healing for abuse will be halted and hindered. No one wishes that. William Taylor, who was once an abuse victim, has clear and vital responsibilities for leadership in this safeguarding task. He is a church leader, and we need his leadership in theisvital area of church life.
I agree with much of what you write, but I would question whether William Taylor is, or can be, fully recovered from John Smyth’s abuse and from the more recent discovery that another mentor and friend, Jonathan Fletcher, was also an abuser. I question it partly because it’s so difficult for any survivor of such abuse to recover fully. It’s even more difficult without extensive psychotherapy . Neither what I know of ConEvo attitudes towards therapy, nor Taylor’s conduct, leads me to assume he’s had such treatment.
It fills me with sadness and anger that the desire of some young people to be more like Jesus should have been exploited and abused in the way that Smyth and Fletcher did. All those who knew of it have a responsibility to report, and it would certainly be good if they were ready and able to help each other.
Yes, Janet, he will always be a victim/survivor. He should of course, have come clean about what he knew for the sake of other (potential) victims. But it is always hard. I can imagine how he may feel he has done well to win through all that and become a success, without storming off, and proved to those who abused him that he could cut it on their terms! Let’s pray that he isn’t still clinging to the things that hurt him because he knows no other way. He could really be a powerful helper to the abused. Let’s hope he finds the strength to pursue that path.
Because JS’s recruitment mushroomed shortly before his reign of terror came to an end, a high proportion of victims suffered only on 1 or 2 occasions. That’s why we can’t generalise. That degree may well not be life-defining. Also the Coltart report suggests that not all who came to JS’s house for this purpose knew him particularly well, i.e. may not have had an ongoing relationship of any magnitude.
(A very brief break from my sabbatical.) The dates quoted by William Taylor for the abuse he received from John Smyth coincide with Smyth’s time as a Recorder of the Crown Court, so, while passing judgement and sentencing others for their crimes, Smyth was actively abusing at the same time – in a different context, reminiscent of Peter Ball’s double-life as a bishop.
Relevant factors to be considered:
(1) It was a mere 6 months from WT first being beaten by JS to his helping blow the whistle on him. That leaves little time for him to be classed as a mentor, but clearly the preceding months will have played their part.
(2) WT most certainly wanted privacy for both himself and his family on this, and all sympathetic people will sympathise with him there.
(3) The Graystone Report already listed William T, and probably deliberately manoeuvred the otherwise-alphabetical listing to justapose him to Andrew W and Alasdair P.
(4) The GR’s thinking no doubt is that these should have shown solidarity with fellow victims by speaking up. One factor that is not aired enough is that victims fall into different categories. There are those who received a beating or two, and for them it was therefore not life-defining. All 3 of these fall in that category (see too Coltart Report). There are also those for whom it was a more prolonged process, and for them it was not surprisingly very life-defining. These 2 categories of people are not in the same boat. The close-knit 1978ff Winchester four are one thing, the new recruits of 1981 are quite another.
(5) Richard Gittins spoke on Channel 4 about how it was all about self-imposed discipline and wanting to be the best for God. The intention was pure, and that counts for a lot. The 3 aforementioned have without exception gone on to be leaders of many; nor have their lives broken down. They wanted to excel as Christians, and leaving aside everything else, that desire has unsurprisingly borne fruit.
One such beating, in the context of being groomed to undergo it, absolutely could be life-defining. There is no simple ratio between the number and severity of beatings and the amount of psychological, spiritual, and emotional damage done.
Agreed – *could* be, and also (as is implied by that) *could* not be. So we are saying the same thing as one another.
Loads of things happen in a lifetime – even within a single day. Including many significant things. For some of the people, more significant things will have happened than the beating(s), and therefore those more significant things will have been better candidates for being life-defining.
I am now advised that the report to which you must be referring was NOT compiled by Andrew Graystone. It was compiled by someone else, trying to draw together a timeline and the various names and threads. It has not been welcomed by some in the victim group as it reveals Christian names of victims, and names some of the African victims in full. However, once online they had no power to have it removed. It does contain some inaccuracies
Sorry about that – I was misinformed.
The Churchwardens’ letter was perhaps a little Jesuitical in stating that Mr Taylor wanted to keep details of the abuse private but not secret. I am a little surprised that he has now decided to make them public.
Christopher. I have never heard of the Graystone report. Are you sure you are not muddling it up with another one? Also I am puzzled how intentions can be pure when they result in abuse! Also the point about being beaten by a mentor makes perfect sense. What other reason would you allow someone to thrash you unless you trusted that their reason for doing so was for your good. That takes a strong relationship of trust which I call the cultic bond. In the cults members are prepared to die for their leaders because they have become vulnerable to their teaching and example. I have discussed this attachment in other posts.
1 That’s absolutely correct – most victims will have seen JS as a mentor.
2 But that does not mean that all did. The one referred to in the Coltart report is named Alistair whether by pseudonym or otherwise, and he just heard of JS as someone who could help people in their Christian lives by imposing discipline, so he sought him out for that reason, and soon thought better of it.
Does this not show the danger of generalisation? What is true of one person will not necessarily be true of another. The conversation has been vitiated by the quite inaccurate practice of seeing all as being victims or survivors on the same level as one another – even those who were beaten by table tennis bat as a well-known routine (perhaps considered hilarious) in full view of all the other campers in Zim. I can certainly see all as victims, and especially so given JS’s impure motivation; but not all on the same level.
(3) Of the three reports, one is called Ruston Report, one Coltart Report, so since these 2 are named after their authors, the most natural name for the third is Graystone Report.
(4) You say ‘I am puzzled how intentions can be pure when they result in abuse’. But that is not what is being said. RIchard Gittins said that the good and idealistic motivation of the young men did indeed result in their making progress against sin, of which their willingness to submit to discipline was a sure sign. The pure intentions (not the committing of abuse) were something that belonged to the young men; the abuse (not the pure intentions) were something that belonged to the abuser. This leaves Simon Doggart who was in both camps (young man, co-beater) and he was agreed to have been brainwashed, and is the one explicitly said to have wanted to be the best for God. Which point again supports my point about good intentions. The young men when interviewed by Mark Ruston typically said ‘I trusted John’ and many had believed all along in the essential goodness of what they were doing (not suspecting the evil nature of what *he* was doing: his motivations and theirs are 2 separate matters) – why would they do that unless they were focused on the fight against sin, and making progress in that fight? Hence the advance to effective Christian leadership over large numbers of people that not a few of them have now made.
(5) I agree with all that you say about the way that (if we are to use the word) cults operate, though not that ‘cult’ is always a very coherent concept – see previous discussions.
Can you tell us more about the third report which you are calling the Graystone Report? I thought I knew a fair bit about this case but I’ve never heard of it. Which Graystone are you assuming to have written it?
Although I was told by the highest of sources that that was the right name, it is not. I apologise again for giving it the wrong name. We can call it ‘The Chronology Report’, and it is the one that lists dramatis personae (often without permission). It is clearly written by someone with a lot of inside information.
As Stephen says, it has errors. Smyth’s UK victims are all listed as ‘Winchester College’, a description untrue of several of them. Also several 1982 events are placed wrongly at the back end of 1981.
Reports are:
Ruston
Coltart
Chronology
Stileman (not in public domain, but some parts of it are)
Graystone (i.e. the new DLT book coming out later this year)
Makin – independent but commissioned by C of E (under preparation)
Scripture Union (completed but publicly available only in part)
Winchester College (under preparation)
Many thanks for this.
I note the reference to ‘the Colmans’ in the context of Smyth’s departure for southern Africa. This was the subject of some interest in the press a few years ago (2017 or thereabouts). However, it has since fallen quiet. Jamie Colman was, I believe, the subject of a Solicitors’ Regulation Authority probe in relation to the support provided to Smyth, but it is not evident to me what the outcome of that investigation was, especially since he seems to have admitted siphoning considerable amounts of money to Smyth’s Zambesi Trust after having been made aware of Smyth’s wrongdoing, though he asserted that in so doing he himself had done nothing wrong. His wife, Sue, who is in orders, assisted at Church Oakley and Wootton St Lawrence until earlier this year (there are a large number of rural evangelical churches in an arc to the north and west of Basingstoke, and the late father of one prominent Anglican evangelical lived in the next parish). She was also high sheriff of Hampshire until earlier this year, and was therefore the sovereign’s [notional] judicial representative in the county. The family, seat, Malshanger, is an imposing Georgian mansion to the north of Oakley. Jamie’s father, Sir Michael Colman, who lives nearby (there are several addresses), was the first church estates commissioner in 1993-99 who had to clear up the mess of the Lovelock years, and who was chairman of Reckitt & Colman until 1995. His mother is a William-Powlett (east Devon gentry, and the daughter of an England Rugby international and vice-admiral who became governor of the landlocked Southern Rhodesia). I would query whether the younger Colman’s commitment to the Zambesi Trust was animated by the family association with what is now Zimbabwe.
It seems to me that Smyth was very adept at exploiting the goodwill of wealthy and well-connected people through his network as a form of ‘insurance’. I would hope that Smyth’s manipulation of these people (and/or their susceptibility to his blandishments) forms part of Keith Makin’s terms of reference, as it is an indicator of how social/religious networks can be used for problematic purposes. I suspect that it falls outwith the strict terms of reference established in 2019, but we shall see if the spiriting away of Smyth and his subsequent financing is touched upon in any detail.
One of the forgotten tragedies of this kind of abuse is that victims lose their faith. As a leader prioritising bringing others to faith ( quite reasonably and properly) was it not obvious that without justice closure, reconciliation with the Church was impossible for most?
WT’s privacy was respected for decades: but the truth was always going to emerge despite so many within the constituency he came to lead obstructing justice on many occasions.
I have little doubt that WT is a serious and sincere Christian: in history such men have nevertheless made serious, sometimes evil decisions. It has always fascinated me.
I had never heard of any of this or these people until late 2017 when I met a Smyth survivor. I instantly realised that this was a scandal that needed to be faced honestly by the Church. I started pushing for the truth to be faced.
If a rubbish Christian like me could see it so clearly – why could not people like WT and his colleagues? This is not only an interesting question, it is a vital one( we need to understand why to help avoid it happening again.
I hope WT does find that the truth sets him free and that he will rejoice in that truth and the opportunity it gives him to model and lead his people towards the integrity that too many have closed their eyes to for too long
I agree wholeheartedly with Martin though not about his being a rubbish Christian. Persons who know next to nothing about Christianity can see this for themselves. Which leaves the question of why Bishops and Archbishops are failing to see the obvious. I would also have thought they had learned the lesson that publicity about the failure to deal appropriately with safeguarding issues and the appalling abuse of complainants is more damaging than owning up to the fact that some clergy are abusive and must be removed from office for the safety of others. You do not have to pay out large sums of money to any agency to see the obvious. What is wrong with our senior leadership? In the meantime some lose their faith and some who might have reached out to the church will keep their distance. My diocese thinks the best fix for this is to spend money on various ways to attract more people. More canon fodder perhaps. I personally know of a church trying to find new parishioners in order to cover up for the reason other parishioners have left. As the underlying problem has not been dealt with this can only be deemed an unsafe practice. Presumably the diocese hopes that pointing to good figures will obscure the reason why otherwise faithful parishioners no longer feel able to worship. The diocese does not appear to care about the gate of those who left. What seems to be important is cosmetic surgery, that if they can make it look good, perhaps the whole issue will go away.
Mary, I am increasingly of the same opinion of you. I was a fairly young Anglican (in my 30s), and now that I have stepped back, I see more and more why people of my age don’t come to the CofE apart from for occasional offices and school admissions. Whatever one might think of the best part of two millennia of ecclesiastical history, a world of hierarchy and oaths of canonical obedience is not one which speaks to my generation. In my workplace, we are encouraged to speak out if we are concerned about something. I am not bound by oaths to my superiors in the way that clergy are, and which may impede their ability to feel that they can raise concerns (‘all things lawful and honest’ notwithstanding).
I did a stint as churchwarden a few years ago at what was / is seen as a successful church. Like Mary’s example, people left, but others replaced them and the numbers held up, even increased. The few who had left who I spoke with afterwards cited that their faith journeys had moved on. Whilst I have no sense that anything untoward was happening, I do regret not showing more curiosity in why they felt that way. Their experiences may have been uncomfortable for the parish, but I dare say that hearing those voices would have been beneficial for us as a church.
The other National Church ( the Scottish) realised after the Reformation that the inherent feudalism of episcopacy had to go. The word ‘priest’ had to go and the hiearchy of Bishop and King, so closely tied together, needed to be altogether changed, as Andrew Melville told King James that in the Church he was “not a King nor a Lord nor a head but a member”. The touching of the forelock has had too much to do with the quiessence of the ‘other members’ in the Church of England.
Thank you James, it is very refreshing to read what you say. I am retired and a m what used to be called a cradle Christian. Until a few years ago I would never have suspected abuse or safeguarding issues to be the reasons for anyone leaving a church. I acted as verger, did a lot of jobs round the church and in the church office, and gave some pastoral care. But in those days I would have had no suspicion that a person leaving the church ma y have been abused. I think that is because we were simply unaware that so much abuse linked to church was taking place. Had we known the scale of the problem it would have been something we bore in mind. Of course many feel unable or do not wish to disclose so even the most vigilant churchwarden would be unaware in those circumstances. And statistically, I hope it is right to say that the majority of people leaving a church do so for reasons other than safeguarding issues. This makes it all the easier for church’s such as mine to cover up what is going on.
Although the priest who abused us at school with unnecessary corporal punishment and sexual touching, was Anglo-catholic, I was brought up in a strict conservative evangelical home church.
Like it or not, con-evos are generally absolutely devoted to their creed. The discovery of now highly publicised abusers Smyth and Jflethcher at the very epicentre of this constituency present very significant structural problems for it. I would say this is an existential threat to all that they believe in.
Who knows exactly what W Taylor is able to think about in respect of the abuse he suffered?
Many of us at IICSA presented our evidence four (or so) decades after the assaults actually happened. What were we thinking all those years when we said nothing?
Strict conservative evangelicals, more than many other variants of faith, build an entire structure of life thinking based on those early years of home, church and school life, and much of what we experience is absorbed and embedded in us as absolute truth and absolutely right. To use the word “cult” is contentious indeed, but there are certainly cult-like principles being operated.
It’s possible for a personality completely to collapse, if key pillars of doctrine and/or key foundational figures are found to be deeply, deeply flawed. This is a threat to mental life resisted most strongly.
It’s almost impossible to construct a narrative that feels whole, which can then re-tell the story about what happened in the thrashings as somehow now completely separate from the doctrine, the system of thought, of belief, of living. Very few have been able to do so authentically. The trauma was part of who they were. Necessary. How can it no longer be, our unconscious repeatedly asks?
Very few psychotherapists have the skill and experience to tackle this material and it’s most unlikely that the key people in this constituency would have been anywhere near this support resource. Neither can this subject easily be understood by listening to sermons with lists of answers. Not to be conflicted by this stuff usually results not from mature understanding but by deep denial, sometimes to the point of ossification. This is usually very evident to loved ones and friends. We should perhaps extend some latitude, not from a point of self-righteous superiority, but conversely from the likelihood of poverty of understanding of what another has been through.
Returning briefly to the existential threat I mentioned, it was put to me recently that when you strip away the abusive deeds, it was all ok wasn’t it? In my opinion, no it wasn’t and no it isn’t. I believe the doctrine especially in extremis, is holed below the waterline. I think realisation of this is growing. On both sides.
I am finding this blog and the comments so helpful. Steve I am so sorry to read your experience. And I am sorry for others’ experiences too, I have been reading past posts.
Thank you for sharing- its incredibly helpful to realise you are not alone, and to see how others navigate their way through this.
I think Mary is right, if people outside of the church can so clearly see what’s going on, why is it that the church hierarchy cannot?
And James is too. I have lost track of the number of times I’ve explained to clergy that in my workplaces and social circles, reasonable challenge is not just accepted, its expected. ESPECIALLY over issues of racism, misogyny, homophobia and even more so over safeguarding and abuse. The institutional culture of the C of E is deeply unsafe, and immediately acts to defend itself and ostracize anyone calling it out, however reasonable.
I’m realising my own faith is battered but not broken, so I continue in my search for genuine safe spaces to practise it outside of the C of E
Churchtoo, this is so good to know. When I first met Stephen, at a talk he gave, it was the first time I’d heard anyone talking about these issues. I was bouncing for days. We do try to support each other. Have a virtual hug!
#churchtoo – I am afraid that what you describe is exactly what happened to me in the CofE. I expressed my concern about what I believed to be a safeguarding issue, and I was thrown under a very fast moving bus for doing so. I had my reputation derogated in ways which still shock me.
The CofE simply cannot be safe as long as those who raise concerns are not only not protected, but actively targeted.
You speak of your own journey around denominations. I have been lucky that my local United Reformed Church took me in and accepted my Anglican preaching accreditation. They have always said that I stay with them as long as I feel that I need to, but they have been very kind to me and other local URC churches now invite me to lead their worship too. In the in-between times, the loss of a worship-leading ministry was the hardest part. I realise that the URC might be different elsewhere, but in my experience in my locality, they have been wonderfully kind to me.
Thanks #churchtoo for your comments and others too. Much appreciated!
I recall joining an international professional services firm getting on for two decades ago and, as part of my induction, was bombarded with video-based training modules about all aspects of diversity that were important to the firm and not to be violated.
If my colleagues there, even way back then, were to hear of our Church’s current issues, such as you, James and others describe here they’d probably laugh in shock that we could be so crass and behind and horrified in equal measure.
Fortunately there is a growing community to call it out and I’m glad you’ve found places of refuge.
English Athena thanks!
Hey James thanks for this!
I think we have had similar experiences. It has really shook me, the way I was treated for raising evidenced concerns was so deeply unChristian. I can’t take teaching from these leaders anymore. Also the total lack of acceptance from c of e clergy that their laity are full of adult, educated, committed Christians who are not to be infantilised and disempowered and dismissed when they raise concerns. The them-and-us clericalism and narcissism is truly awful.
I am also finding sanctuary in the URC. Since I am part of the lgbt community the URC is significantly safer for me anyway as it doesn’t have issues in human sexuality to deal with, or any similar documented homophobic nonsense.
It’s quite a strange thing tho changing denomination because you constantly feel a bit estranged from what you knew. But it is the only way.
Blessings x
#church too – the sense of ‘them and us’ was something that was very evident in my case. As you say, it was as if senior clergy felt that I was some sort of threat for offering a challenge to them. No matter how respectfully I queried what I had been told (and what I was being told went against all of my professional experience), I was cast as a troublemaker for daring to offer a different viewpoint to them. We are told that keeping the Church safe is all of our responsibilities, but that statement evidently isn’t worth much.
I am glad that you are finding sanctuary in the URC. Our local minister describes them as ‘the least worst denomination’, and certainly there are things which mark them as being ahead of the CofE, e.g. the URC has adopted the concept of ‘adult at risk’ whereas the CofE persists with the older and more limited concept of ‘vulnerable adult’. I miss some of the aesthetics of Anglican worship (the URC doesn’t have Choral Evensong, alas), but when I last attended an Anglican Sunday service in September last year, I realised that worshipping God in the CofE was too wrapped up in the hurt caused by our local diocese and I needed time away. I might return one day, but I think that both I and the CofE need God’s healing first.
Many thanks, James. I agree wholeheartedly. Absent the Quakers I don’t think there is a dissenting tradition where I have felt as ‘at home’ as the URC. I am struggling to think of an instance where I haven’t received a warm welcome and have felt at home amongst the URC churches where I have worshipped. That cannot be said of the (admittedly rather larger) number of Anglican churches I have attended, still less of Anglican clergy and those in ‘authority’. Maybe I am just an instinctive congregationalist. Moreover, I have felt a sense of seemliness and decorum in URC services which I do not always get from Anglican equivalents.
I can’t compete with your extensive church attendances, but as a peripatetic and mainly deputising organist I have played, at the latest count, in 27 churches in the Diocese of Winchester, and a few beyond. These included two URC where, in both cases, I was made very welcome by the Minister and members. Those experiences also introduced me to alternative hymn tunes to ones in familiar use in the C of E, and fine singing by the congregations.
Without exception I have been made warmly welcome (not as organist) in Roman Catholic churches, once onboard ship with a very friendly RC chaplain, and two of their cathedrals, St Chad’s in Birmingham (Pugin, of course) and St Anne’s in Leeds. These are now memories but happy ones.
The recent furore in the Winchester Diocese has not touched the two churches with which I have been connected. We are fortunate. Traditional C of E liturgy and music, to which I am devoted, have been preserved and are gradually returning after the disruption caused by Covid.
Neither can I compete with Froghole’s extensive experience of church visiting and encyclopaedic knowledge. But these perspectives are instructive.
What’s the opposite of Institutional Narcissism? Institutional Humility perhaps? A little of this goes a long way.
It can be quite soul-destroying searching for a “new” church, but on the other hand quite refreshing visiting incognito, as it were, particularly if you are heavily busy with ministry yourself. I’ve been in both camps.
A friend of mine attends online services, but confesses that if the sermon drags a bit in one, he is inclined to switch to another for a better preach. This may seem a bit frivolous, but there is a serious point lurking there somewhere, namely that people do have choice, and can exercise it.
A world where what the vicar says goes, is becoming increasingly anachronistic. In the outside world, feedback is given both ways and acted upon quite often. In the business world what might be termed as a “buyers market” operates when people have choice. It certainly isn’t universally applicable but customers can often take their business elsewhere. In the world of church this is also true but there are significant costs to leaving or transferring in terms of pain and disruption. I wonder whether the barriers to leaving are lowering?
‘A world where what the vicar says goes’
I don’t recognise this from the churches where I’ve been vicar! Maybe people are less likely to treat female clergy in this way? And I certainly haven’t encouraged this attitude – though in my last parish a little of it would have made a welcome change from ‘what the vicar says, we oppose’.
Steve, this is very interesting point. I think that there is an increased awareness outside of the CofE of how power dynamics in the CofE function.
When I arrived at the URC, the sense from the minister and elders was sadness but not surprise at what I had experienced in the CofE. This was before the publication of the IICSA and Jonathan Fletcher reports, so if anything, I imagine that that sense would be even more acute now.
Opposition and acquiescence seem unlikely bedfellows but I’ve certainly observed both firsthand with vicars. In theory acquiescence would seem preferable but the excessive deference some positions seem to carry has not helped the incumbents or their charges very much at all.
I’ve experienced both as a leader, but not as a vicar of course. I expected a lot more opposition than I got, and sometimes the acquiescence was bizarre, fawning, even cringeworthy. I recall a young overseas woman actually genuflecting towards me. I was dumbfounded.
Opposition I found very hard work. If there was disagreement and I felt strongly about my approach, I’d take it to my leadership team. Sometimes they backed me, sometimes they didn’t. I asked for and stuck to a majority vote.
Looking back, sometimes I was quite wrong.
This was in church life. In secular life, there’s a lot less deference. Respect is hard to earn and easily lost.
James. Thanks is very interesting what you say about ‘adults at risk’ and vulnerable adults. I have been banging on about how this does not make sense for some time. It is good to know that the URC have done some careful thinking about this. I shall look into it.
Thank you Stephen and Froghole for your comments.
Here is the URC’s latest safeguarding policy: https://urc.org.uk/good-practice-policy-and-procedures
You may be as struck as I am that it is now in its fifth edition! I think that this latest version dates from 2019.
The URC seems to be the destination of choice for former Anglicans – my impression is that approaching half of our local congregation have Anglican connections. At least one person continues to self-define as Anglican despite having left her parish church about 15 years ago. My wife and I once referred to her as being a former Anglican and she corrected us with “I am Anglican”. I am often struck by those Congregationalists of days gone by who insisted that being part of a free church was a temporary measure until the CofE was suitably reformed, at which point they would return.
Perhaps there is a lesson to us all there that we are all entitled to have a vision of what a safe CofE might look like which would assuage our consciences about returning?
What I have read of the URC safeguarding policy appears to be a model of clarity, common sense and practical guidance, all conveniently laid-out in separate and readily identified sections. You will be able to find what you need for a given situation without wading through quantities of extraneous material. I picked up that sexual abuse must be reported to proper authorities: police and social services, as well as internally, and matters are to be taken forward when that has been done. I’m not sure that the C of E has even yet definitely reached that position.
What comes across is the URC having tackled and set out clear guidance on matters which we seem to discuss ad infinitum.
There is equally a much clearer, dare I say fairer, process for ministers and staff facing allegations. Whilst conceding that the C of E is a far more complex organisation, it remains to be seen how the C of E’s revised CDM might compare.
The URC safeguarding policy, appropriately adapted to the C of E’s structure, could well serve as a model for the C of E. It is well worth looking at.
The new safeguarding material that I’ve just ploughed through to renew my licence is very good. But the trouble is, it tells you what to do in cases of historical abuse, for example, only they don’t do it! Then what?
Exactly so English Athena. I am sorry this is your situation. No doubt that is why complainants are targeted by their diocese. We highlight that the church is in the wrong and not following its own rules. They either pick us off one by one or the ignore us as currently there is nothing we can do singly. The power is all theirs. What we need is collective action. Perhaps forming a group large enough that we can no longer be ignored and demanding a national review into all the cases currently ignored showing a recalcitrant church deliberately doing nothing and allowing its rules to be ignored. I don’t know that we could stand the emotional strain of having to keep battling. I can show three Bishops acting against the interests of my complaint effectively covering up wrong doing. two simply ignore serious issues it is their duty to deal appropriately with. I could bring a cdm for misconduct against one Bishop quite easily but what’s the point? Perhaps we need more creative ways to attack and conquer the system. In my experience all a Bishop needs to do is ignore complainants and sit tight in the knowledge that one complainant acting alone is helpless. The statements emanating nationally are just there to pretend all’s well and the new guidelines will provide justice and protection. The reality is the guidelines are there to sound good, not to be acted upon. I
Long ago the then Dean of Guildford advised me the tif you can’t get the Church to do the right thing any other way, go to the media. Adverse media exposure is the only thing some of them really worry about.
Yeah, but remember they tell lies about you! It’s a hell of a risk.
You can be anonymous.
English Athena – I agree about the risk of going public – that lies will be told about you. My complaint against a vicar was dismissed for the simple reason that he lied repeatedly and the archdeacon believed him. If I went any further, his lies would persist so giving up is better than being publicly shamed.
I’m sorry to hear that. I am considering going public. Like you I am of good character. I too worry that the clergy guilty of misconduct will be portrayed as the innocent party and I will be trashed. From my experience the more evidence there is on your side the more badly you will be treated. My diocese will stop at nothing, my Bishop is determined that he must come out of it clean. How can you get anonymity yet name your diocese?
A reputable journalist should be able to help you with that. If you’re in touch with Andrew Graystone, he might be able to advise.
Thank you Janet, that is most helpful. Only wish you could get justice without being trashed. The church acts more like the mafia, speak out, speak the truth, and they will be coming to get you.
That happens far too often. And it’s wrong.
Individually it’s hard to have sufficient mental reserves to get very far, particularly when (to our horror) we see what lengths of dishonesty they’re prepared to go to.
Mary is right. There is much more power in a collective response. For example, I approached the Truth Project where I hoped my experiences would be heard and collated with others. I believe they were. Moreover I was treated well.
However, the police notified me that our priest perpetrator had died and then that was the end of that. Now what should I do? Sue the school? The diocese? I did write to a journalist, who assured me eventually that he’d added the name and details to his database.
Looking at it from his perspective or a putative other, what’s in it for him? And will it help me in my distress? It certainly might help others one day. Realistically journalists have to sell papers or books or not offend tv advertisers. And they control the story, as indicated by several contributors here.
I follow a number of lawyers close to this field of work and wonder what initiatives they have in the offing in terms of a collective initiative?
There’s a biblical exhortation against going to law against fellow Christians and we’d have to work through that.
Vivienne Neville, in her work for clergy spouses who’d been thrown out of their homes, had done powerful work leading a collective response. She’s a Methodist now if I recall. It would need someone of her energy and mental strength to head this up.
In terms of funding a collective response there are ways this could be achieved. I note Dean Percy used crowd funding successfully, at least initially.
Good idea Steve. We have just witnessed innocent post office personnel being jailed when they were in court as individuals. Collective action freed them and delivered some justice. It would be much easier if we could do the same and it would be harder for the church to trash us as individuals.
Regarding going to law against a fellow believer, her tis my take on it, for what it’s worth:
– This teaching is found in 1 Cor. 6:1-8. As with all epistles, it’s written to particular people and in a specific situation. Therefore, we have to dig into what, if any, are the universal principles behind what is said; and this will involve some knowledge at least of the historical and cultural background to the letter. I’m using the NRSV version in my comments below.
– St. Paul is addressing one or more situations where one believer has defrauded another; he refers to these as ‘trivial cases’. He is not talking about serious cases or violence.
– He expects such cases to be adjudicated or mediated within the church fellowship, and is speaking to those who chose to go to civil courts *instead of* asking the church to deal with it.
– The infant church was trying to establish itself as a respectable religion, in the face of distrust, hostility, and persecution from the Roman Empire and society at large. In that context it was vital that Christians did not give anyone outside the church another opportunity to say this sect was dangerous, unprincipled, and ought to be exterminated.
– St. Paul is not addressing a situation where the Church has become an institution which has itself committed serious wrongs against people.
– In the case of the Church of England, it is not only a well established institution; it is powerful and firmly embedded in the English Establishment.
Therefore, in my view, going to law against the Church may be, and too often is, the best or only way to get justice. Further, an individual taking such action is very likely to assist others to obtain justice. It is also an effort towards cleansing the Church and preventing harm to others.
We would like to prevent the litigiousness of the USA. A second point is that lawyers are not always the most scrupulous of individuals. They are used to oodles of money sloshing around (sometimes for very little service provided, or for the sort of basic advice that friendly people would provide for free); and also the law is a game or alternative universe that has no obligation to reflect reality.
With these rather large provisoes, I agree – it is fine to go to law once the friendlier and less confrontational channels have been exhausted (Matthew chs 5, 18).
I have found more integrity among lawyers than I have in the upper echelons of the church!
I’m sure you’re right. But that does not address the issue of the *absolute* integrity of the legal profession, only the different issue of its integrity *relative* to some specific other profession. It is still possible to have two low average integrities of which one will always be higher than the other. Just as when two pupils get five and three out of ten.
I think there can be some bad eggs in any profession, but the legal profession is very strictly regulated; solicitors can be struck off and barristers disbarred if they fail to uphold professional standards. It’s not widely understood that solicitors are officers of the court and must never act in conflict with that fact. Barristers are equally subject to disciplinary powers of the court as well as their own professional regulation. I suggest that dishonourable conduct is very rare indeed. I have known of a few injustices by judges, usually due to impatience, bad temper or not even listening properly, but I know of no cases of judicial corruption.
The English legal system is not perfect, and it is expensive, but most of the time it functions to serve justice.
Yes, I affirm all that – the problems with the law lie deeper, and are many – for example:
(a) The way that some people view the law as some kind of absolute when they know perfectly well that it is a construct which has not even always been thus in this country and to this day varies from country to country.
(b) The way that people are self-congratulatory about what after all is just people walking into one lobby (Aye) or another (Noe) – something that even a child could do. Usually having not been present at the preceding debate.
(c) The way that the people who vote on laws (MPs) not only are not even the experts, but may in fact have not the slightest knowledge of the topic.
(d) The way that they may sometimes vote to please their constituents or get reelected (i.e. from self-interest) rather than on the basis of the facts and research and evidence.
(e) The way that law is a parallel universe under no obligation to reflect the scientific realities. And somehow people behave as though science and reality were *not* prior to law.
(f) The way that with loopholes etc it is a kind of game and people can play the system.
(g) Law gives rise to rights which are wonderfully beneficial in most cases but cannot be said to have objective existence.
(h) Through all of which it is no accident the way that terms like ‘sharks’ are employed of this particular profession. There can be a great lust for money disproportionate to the actual value of services provided (Bleak House).
(i) Extremely unpleasant is the mentality of many divorce lawyers, who are after all in the business of supporting the divisive and less mature while also simultaneously effectively trampling on the peaceable and already-deserted. The Times legal correspondent heralded the no-fault divorce proposals as supported by a consensus (!) when the government’s own consultation showed that 80% of people were opposed. What he had meant was a consensus of lawyers. There is this awful mentality that only elites like lawyers matter (elites with an amoral outlook in this instance) and the little people are nothing.
(g) The fact
Christopher, what has all this got to do with the subject we are discussing – abuse victims getting justice from the Church?
It is just one angle that might be forgotten: that if we are hoping that the law (as opposed to justice) will act as our saviour, it can sometimes happen that endemic problems in the concept of law and the way the law operates can put a spanner in the works. Law does not always equate to justice; but let us hope that it does so this time.
I think you’re right here Janet. And many of us have tried to resolve things within the church, and been treated abominably. The church is haemmoraging members because of the dishonesty of its leaders. This is quite a different situation from the one Paul is speaking to. Also I do take what he says on this particular aspect with a dose of salt since every time something happens to him he shouts I’m a Roman citizen! Jesus always takes a creative third way, neither passively accepting oppression nor becoming the tyrant. What would that look like for us?
Good point.
But, if I may defend Paul here, he used the protection of the Roman law against persecution by Roman officials. That is quite different from deploying the Roman law against fellow Christians.
The first edition of the Baptist Union’s “Safe to Grow”, based on the Home Office’s “Safe from Harm”, came out in 1994 and has been revised and expanded several times since (initially it only covered children but not “adults at risk”). It seems to be out of print at the moment although quite a few resources are available on line. As an Accredited Minister I must renew my DBS certification every year; this is only issued after attending a training course – at present on line. I must also do another short course each year. I suspect that the Methodists are more rigorous, though!