An area of church life that is difficult to discuss without raising passions, is the topic of social class. For many parish selection committees, there is a real dilemma which the rest of us can only imagine as we are excluded from their deliberations. To put it at it simplest, what do you do when faced with a candidate that is a social ‘fit’ and another that is more interesting but who would find it harder to resonate with the social and political attitudes of a congregation? There is no answer to this question, but I raise the dilemma as a background to what else I have to say connected with a safeguarding story in the Church today.
A clergyman unknown to me, had successfully served in an urban parish, having taken his considerable academic and training talents into a post where they were appreciated. Eventually he was offered a new post. The new congregation he was to serve were, however, among the social elite of the county. Their politics were on the far right and considerable but subtle pressure was put on the priest to conform, at least outwardly. At first he resisted, but gradually he found it easier to conform to the politics and conservative Christian outlook of the congregation’s older more established members. His original mild leftie political stance softened so that it gradually started to embrace the right-wing attitudes of the congregation. Changing his philosophical attitudes was one thing but the congregation expected him to support their campaigns for the legality of fox hunting and their resistance to low-cost housing in the area. This changing of our priest’s political outlook might still not have been too serious, but my friend, watching his career, felt he was seeing something more serious, the corruption of his core personality.
Somewhere, In changing parishes and adopting an overall right-wing approach to life and society, our priest also acquired a new bullying hectoring style of personality. He had always had the intellectual strength and power to get the better verbally of anyone who opposed him. The only thing was that, in the urban parish, it had seemed inappropriate and wrong to turn on anyone with both barrels. In his new wealthy environment, he found himself involved in more and more situations of conflict and these he fought with intellectual and political skill. At one level my friend was noticing that the priest had become a bully and those who were not among the parish elite, were beginning to be afraid of him. Some of the causes he fought were to do with the parish. Others were local causes. All the battles he was fighting brought him notoriety, press attention and co-enthusiasts, but few friends. What my friend was noticing was a flexing of intellectual and personal power by the priest, but a decline in the levels of compassion and empathy that had been apparent before. His intellect and his fierce verbal power were now to be avoided at all costs. Professional standards were not being broken by his outspokenness in fighting his political and personal battles. But, overall, he was causing damage to himself and to the reputation of the Church.
Somehow, I found myself indirectly caught up in the drama. My link was to one of the priest’s victims. He reached out to me after being in a difficult experience of bullying at the priest’s hands. For a very brief moment, I considered reaching out to speak to the priest, but I quickly changed my mind. First, I was not part of the dispute and that any word from me would, in all likelihood, make things worse. Second, I recognised that the exercise of raw primal power that seemed now to be in evidence, would possibly have a bad unsettling effect on me. Anger expressed against another individual, even a party not involved in a dispute, is never neutral in tone. It can feel like a physical assault. It is one part of the armoury used by the powerful against the weak. How many abused victims of sexual violence have also suffered in their exposure to the primal verbal power of the bully? This sort of power exercise is never encountered as dialogue. It always feels like a frontal assault because the person with the damaging bullying personality appears to have lost the art of soft conciliatory words.
What I was learning from this experience, here heavily anonymised, is that those guilty of one kind of power abuse are likely also skilled at a whole range of other interpersonal power techniques, These, in various ways, in varying degrees, can hold victims in a state of abject fear. If we take the range of abuse survivors, those whose representatives we meet on this blog, we are talking about tens of thousands of individuals. Most, however, remain invisible. They seldom get to see their cause aired by assessors or panels, because they believe their cases will be considered trivial when compared with the serious abuse cases. These more subtle forms of abuse normally come to light because victims experience them alongside the serious forms of behaviours that require proper scrutiny. Abuse survivors will also have experienced many other forms of abuse, including anger, shunning and shaming. Their abuser will likely have honed their power skills in several directions. Most victims of multiple power assaults, including, I suspect, myself in such a situation, will not hang around to wait for the open resolution of the wrong committed against them. They will retreat into a safe space to lick their wounds and do everything possible to avoid further pain. The survivors we know about, among them contributors to this blog, are among the brave souls who refuse to take the ‘easy’ path. They stand up to be counted and take the cause of justice into the public arena. This is by no means an easy place to occupy as institutional opponents can still aim a multitude of power weapons against them. Abuse is, as we are constantly repeating, a multi-dimensional reality. Those who perpetrate it are proficient at using a variety of weapons against those who challenge their power.
Since starting this blog almost eight years ago, I have probably managed to upset a few individuals along the way. This upset has only resulted in one actual legal threat of slander. A slight rewriting resolved the issue. I have thus not had to suffer the sense of powerlessness or shock that follows the experience of being under a power attack arising out of the anger or aggression of another person. But I realised, in my recent discussion about the clergyman moving to a new position that I, like most others, have little protection to fend off the consequences of serious verbal abuse. Being shouted at, trolled or generally verbally abused is a deeply unsettling experience, even if you are innocent and the attacks are entirely misplaced or misdirected.
As a final thought on this subject of bullying or verbal abuse, I also came to one further insight. Fending off such attacks can be achieved with the help of friends, supporters and maybe, in some cases, a friendly lawyer, but the experience is never pleasant. When I encounter, even in my imagination, primal anger in another person I am facing up to something deeply disturbing. Sometimes I even feel it is energised by something evil in a theological sense. I do not claim to be able to justify such a claim, but I just get the impression that our exercise of power, both good and bad, has always a spiritual agenda or dimension. People are built up or sometimes harmed spiritually and in other ways by the way we use our verbal power. To misquote the passage from Exodus when Moses encountered God in the Burning Bush. ‘When you use words with others, take off your shoes for the place where you are standing is holy ground.’
So far, I have not experienced the problems described here in any Church in which I have been a member or associated with in some way and that over 60 years. Most of the time, I was in a responsible position. However, I have been aware of such problems elsewhere. Never easy to resolve and there will often be hurt on both sides.
You are very fortunate, Michael. In my experience bullying is rife in churches. The problem is it can be subtle, it often isn’t done in the open, and bullies tend to pick vulnerable targets who, as Stephen says, often vanish rather than going public. So it’s possible that bullying may have been going on around you without your being aware of it. Many bullies are adept at being charming and reasonable with those they want to keep onside, while keeping their aggressive behaviour covert.
I think it’s also true that women are more likely to be bullied than men, especially in denominations where we are not fully equal. The CofE has a poor record in this respect. Though, goodness knows, I’ve also known a few women who were bullies.
I have witnessed this too. My complaint against my vicar was upheld. When they left the parish another parishioner came forward with a complaint of a different nature against them. The actual abuse I suffered was of two kinds. It felt as if the protagonists, including my former vicar were flexing their muscles in several ways. This should not surprise us. Stephen’s story shows how a person’s character and behaviour deteriorate and over time. As well as it being a matter of justice, this is an important reason for discipline to be carried out where applicable. Those who get away with misconduct, will often deteriorate and others will become their victims. I suspect it is also true of systemic and institutional abuse by dioceses. Having got away with sending me letters threatening legal action, now that I contacted Trustees saying their CEO was guilty of fabricating evidence against me, I have received another threatening solicitors letter threatening police action if I write to any clergy or Diocesan officers. I have informed the charity commission that I have effectively been threatened with police action if I write to Trustees to alert them to their responsibilities in my case. I am awaiting the response of the charity commission as I believe the diocese is acting illegally. I strongly believe that the behaviour of bullies, abusers, and dioceses will at best continue, and at worst deteriorate and if it not stopped in its tracks. The unseemly pursuit of Dean Percy which can only be called disproportionate to the point ,of torture, is a case in point.
Hmm. Reading this and realising that I have experienced bullying and gone away to lick my wounds.
Also thinking that this is related to childhood experiences of abuse and learned defence mechanisms.
Welcome. It’s terribly common. And not just in the church. Cover-ups and denial are not unique to the church, either, but you’d think Christians would do better. And we don’t. I hope this is a good place for you.
Thank you.
That’s how I feel about it. It’s everywhere, but it’s so disappointing that it’s in the church.
Bullies are good at spotted the wounded and zeroing in, as are all predators. It’s the opposite of what Jesus tells us to do and be. It was said of him that he wouldn’t break a bruised reed. I hope you find SC a place of healing.
Thank you, Janet!
Yes, it makes me so angry!
Like Banquo’s ghost, the past has come back to haunt the Church of England and in a curiously parallel way. Today’s Times has two reports on the Nine O Clock Service. These excerpts are uncannily parallel to current problems in the Church:
1. the involvement of a bishop: the Right Rev David Lunn, then the Bishop of Sheffield
‘the hierarchy was buzzing at the prospect of a vibrant model of service that might be copied around the country to attract new congregations’ parallel to the current plan for 10,000 lay led churches endorsed by the Archbishop of York.
2. ‘Chris Brain met Dr George Carey, who was soon to be the Archbishop of Canterbury, and later recalled: “He said to me, ‘I’d be very happy to see an NOS in every town and city in the UK’.”’ If a scandal happened in the 1990s, Carey seems always to be involved.
3. ‘Brain was fast-tracked for ordination [in 1992]’ What a curious coincidence that another evangelical was also fast tracked for ordination at the same time in Kenya, that ordination and its validity currently the subject of hot debate.
4. ‘The church authorities were either unaware of, or happy to turn a blind eye to some more disturbing aspects of the movement…There were allegations of controlling behaviour…Church leaders finally listened in August 1995 after disclosures by three whistleblowers…The Anglican hierarchy fast-tracked the ordination of Chris Brain, the NOS’s figurehead, and gave his movement financial backing. He met Dr George Carey, the Archbishop of Canterbury elect, in 1990…’ This is such a familiar narrative. Is the Church of England uniquely bad at allowing such situations, even now potentially enabling them in the future with the 10,000 plan.
And what of Brain? ‘Now aged 63, he uses the name James Brain and is co-director of a “transformation design” consultancy based in Manchester.’ He was unavailable for comment according to the Times.
I don’t know if survivors have had this information passed to them by their own dioceses but just in case anyone is interested the church is looking for survivor volunteers to join the working party for the redress scheme.
Would really benefit from a clergy survivor Janet in my opinion so it broadens the scope and lots of articulate survivors contribute to this blog.
National Redress Scheme Victim and Survivor Working Group Victim or Survivor Representative – Pathways | Pathways (churchofengland.org)
Sorry this is the link, I hope it works!
https://pathways.churchofengland.org/job/pathways/2537/national-redress-scheme-victim-and-survivor-working-group-victim-or-survivor-representative
Stephen touches on an important point, which is that words can be every bit as damaging as physical or sexual abuse. But the church, with its outmoded approach to abuse, deems anything other than sexual misconduct not to be abuse.
In theory, it doesn’t. But individuals are not following what it says on the documents.