All of us have been profoundly disturbed and dismayed by the events currently going on in Ukraine.  Few of my readers will have any direct links with the country and thus many of us will have had to cram up on reading a bit of historical/political background to make some sense of the unfolding drama. I have a tiny emotional involvement with the country of Ukraine which comes from a meeting I had some years ago, when I was acting as a bank chaplain at my local hospital.  There I met a remarkable Ukrainian man who was a patient.  He was born in 1928, so he had lived through a succession of catastrophic episodes in the history of his country before coming Britain in the 1950s.  As a small child living in the countryside, he and his family had gone through the terrible famines of the 30s, when millions starved to death.  This was a by-product of Stalin’s struggle against the kulaks or prosperous peasant class.   Ten years or so later, Ukraine suffered the depredations of the invading German army.  This was followed three years later by the recapture of his homeland by the Soviet army.  Both armies treated the ordinary people appallingly.  The Soviet’s reason for persecuting the ordinary working people derived from an intense suspicion of the whole population.  In 1941 some Ukrainians had welcomed the Germans initially as liberators, because the invaders were pretending to be freeing them from Stalin and the Communist yoke. 

The 20^th century history of Ukraine is enormously complex and, as well, has been extremely dangerous for those who live there.  Nevertheless, my hospital patient had lived through much of it in his youth and was still alive in his late 80s.  He was, I think, grateful to talk to someone who had an interest of the history of his former homeland.  This current invasion evokes, for some, previous episodes of incursions of destructive foreign armies as they make their way across the vast flat plains of the country.  We have no idea what the future will bring for this unhappy nation, but there are some grounds for feeling some hope that things may not end in complete disaster. 

What are my reasons for having a modicum of hope in this dreadful situation?  The first reason for feeling hope is that there is an extraordinary act of foolishness for a president to send his troops off to war without allowing them to know for what cause they are fighting.  Putin has seemingly become so confident in his grasp of power over the Russian people that he has omitted to pay attention to this basic requirement of war.  Soldiers always need to understand and believe in the cause for which they are fighting.  Without any sense of purpose, history suggests that even the best equipped armies will be far less effective, especially when the ‘enemy’ looks and sounds very much like they are.

The second ground for hope is that the Russians army is , at the time of writing, facing stiff resistance.  The cost of the war for the Russians is, apparently, some £15 billion a day.  It is doubtful that the Russian war chest is big enough to withstand a prolonged conflict, especially when under economic attack from the whole of the rest of the world.  But the greater challenge to the Russian cause is that the miasma of lies explaining the war to the general public is beginning to come apart at the seams.  The Russian authorities have been long preparing for a war where they could be portrayed as an army of liberation, rescuing a benighted and persecuted Russian speaking minority from a ‘Nazi’ dominated government based in Kyiv.  American intelligence helpfully undermined the government’s narrative, by announcing each of the ‘provocations’ or ‘false flag’ events before they actually happened.  Somehow, the announcement by Moscow that Ukraine’s government was shelling their own people did not sound to be a very convincing item of ‘news’.  Through the work of their intelligence services, the Americans seemed to know all about this and other forms of propaganda before they were released as ‘news’.  Putin’s reasoning and justifications for the Ukraine invasion have also drawn on so many extraordinary and completely bogus historical claims that no one seems to know what the real reasons for war might actually be.  Lies are hard things to manage because, when truth disappears from a narrative, it is quite difficult for all the different stakeholders to remember the version of the lie that they are supposed to be upholding.

When lies become embedded in a narrative or an institution, they make that structure very brittle and fragile.  It only takes one person to see that the Emperor is not as well dressed as he was supposed to be to create a fissure in the organisation that cannot easily be repaired.  Lies or the suppression of truth may work for a while in any setting, but the truth has a habit of eventually coming out.  Putin’s lies as well as his paranoid behaviour will be eventually completely understood even more that they are at present.  Even if the Russians overcome the Ukrainian army in the present round of conflict, the real story, the account of Ukrainian courage amidst their suffering will continue to resonate for decades and centuries to come.  When we talk about the verdict of history, we are talking about something very powerful indeed.  All the myths and fake propaganda coming out of Russia, will quickly be forgotten by future generations.  They will demand to know the truth, free of any political garnish.  The weaknesses of the Russian perspective on the war have now become so clear that few people will take the trouble even to remember what is being said as the official narrative.  History will be clinically factual and brutal in its critique of the despicable power games being played by the Russian president.  Can Putin do anything to reverse the impression that his only real concern in being head of the Russian people is to protect the massive amounts of wealth that he has looted from his own people over the past 20 plus years?

The Ukrainian war has already lasted four days (I am writing this on Sunday).  The fact that the Ukrainian people have the will and determination to resist, in spite of the overwhelming and sophisticated weapons being used against them, is remarkable.  Every act of resistance shows that the myth, that Ukrainians are desperate to be rescued from an oppressive government, is a lie.  Every hour of fighting makes this particular Russian Putinesque propaganda less credible.  The country has already produced its own martyrs.  Individuals have given their lives defending their motherland and, no doubt, there will be many more. Among them is Vitaly Shakun who blew himself up along with a bridge he was defending, thus delaying the Russian advance. Martyrs in the Christian tradition had the power to convince the cruel and jaded culture of the Roman empire that there are other ways to live.  Altruism, self-sacrifice and humble service still have power to create complete change in others.  We see echoes of the early Church in the events of today in Ukraine.  The one who has the political and military power (like the Roman Emperor or the Russian army) may appear to be victorious, but not in the eyes of posterity.

The fate of the Ukrainian people is still very much in the balance.   The hope is that whatever their short-term suffering, the long-term result for the nation will be that the cause of truth and the triumph of honesty and integrity will have the last word.  Indeed, the heroes of Ukraine shine like a bright light when compared with the cynical obsession with wealth and power that is the main concern of the real enemies, the Russian elite and the President. Although the current Ukrainian heroism is inspired by political and nationalistic factors, there is a lesson for Christians.  Ukraine is not simply a reminder of something close to our tradition of Christian martyrdom; it is also a prompt to remind us that all Christians as well as their institutions stand under the judgement of history.  If and when Christian institutions play fast and loose with integrity and honesty, they too will be judged harshly by the future. 

The theme of this blog has meant that I, as editor, have become very sensitised to the issue of integrity in Christian institutions.  Like my readers, I have looked on while the reputations of both institutions and individuals have been reassessed or even trashed by the power of the verdict of history.  Like the Russian state, there are some church entities whose reputations have been sustained by wealth, power or legal protections.  These have then dissolved when the truth about their activities has later emerged.  No amount of money can buy off the verdict of history.  Safeguarding stories lead the list of narratives that have powerfully shredded reputations. Andrew Graystone’s work on the Smyth affair has revealed how a clique of powerful churchmen has protected the institutional interests of a social religious elite over a long period of time.  Another book, yet to be written, will uncover how institutions and wealth have been allowed to persecute in order to preserve privilege and power at Christ Church Oxford.  In short, the professional historians of the future will, no doubt, be revealing the shame, the subterfuge and the lies that have sometimes become enmeshed in the power structures of the Church of England and other denominations that protect the interests of a few.   The thing that constantly amazes those of us who get involved in the sensitive details of safeguarding scandals, is how many apparently upright individuals are prepared to sacrifice their integrity when tempted by the gratifications of power and influence.  To misquote Scripture once again.  For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his integrity, his reputation and his honesty?  President Putin has amassed the largest financial fortune that the world has ever seen, but it seems that he will end up the most despised individual of this century.   How many others, even in the Church, are following him in a small way by submitting to the temptation of gaining institutional and personal power but losing their integrity in the process?

by Josephine Stein

What is the purpose of safeguarding? What and who exactly is safeguarding for in the Church of England and what is at stake?  And how can one assess how well structures, processes and people achieve safeguarding objectives?

The best way to understand ecclesiastical safeguarding is to benchmark its practices against other sectors which have proven successful, such as aviation and healthcare.  The aviation industry rewards workers for promptly reporting dangerous situations, including those arising from their own mistakes.  Professionalism underpins patient safety and well-being in the healthcare sector, with the General Medical Council setting standards for the professional duty of candour (www.gmc-uk.org).  This requires healthcare professionals to inform patients, as well as their colleagues, employers and relevant organisations, when things go wrong and how they are being set right (see Matthew Syed, Black Box Thinking). 

What a contrast to the Church! 

Safeguarding in the Church is adversarial, requiring those who suspect problems to report them to their Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor / Officer.  The DSA/O can then instigate a process which is protracted, expensive and damaging to just about everyone involved.  Survivors are often forced to drive the complaints process while the Church delays, obscures and frustrates the process.  The Clergy Discipline Measure is unsuitable for responding to safeguarding allegations and has been weaponized against innocent clergy.  Many of the people who ought to be protected are severely harmed, most notably survivors, but also the accused. 

A large operation exists to control safeguarding, generating numerous policies and guidelines along with periodic compulsory training, ‘lessons learned’ reviews (including PCRs 1 and 2) and compliance audits.  

‘Standards for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy’ do not address self-reflection in clergy nor behavioural standards of ministry, let alone a professional duty of candour. 

Perpetrators may be shunned but are not cared for in the way one would expect of a Christian institution; care for survivors is perceived as grudging and inadequate.  According to former DSA, spiritual director and psychotherapist Fiona Gardner, the institutional Church has a corporate personality resembling those of individual perpetrators of abuse (Gardner, 2021).  Not surprisingly, 100% of a sample of 2,000 survivors reported that the Church’s responses to disclosures were worse than the original abuse.

What lessons are being learned?  Are we any safer as a result of Church safeguarding activities?

Much has been said and written about the need to change the culture of the Church, but what this means is very unclear.  It may take a very long time to effect widespread behavioural change and confidence in safety if left to the powers that be. 

Meanwhile, how can the Church’s safeguarding activities achieve better value for money?

Assessing the state of the Church’s safeguarding culture and of ‘value for money’ needs to be provided by an evaluation conducted by independent professionals, following a clear and inclusive methodology.  The process involves gathering input from all groups of people affected by safeguarding, and collating views including both shared and differing understandings.  Those who have been abused (survivors) represent the most important group in an evaluation as ‘end users’ of safeguarding practice, along with the small proportion of clergy who have been falsely accused of abuse. 

Who are the other stakeholders?  In addition to perpetrators, PCCs and congregations, there are safeguarding professionals, lawyers, trainers, reviewers, administrators and insurers; and clergy such as parish priests, cathedral canons and deans, archdeacons and bishops. 

Stakeholders would be asked what they believe the specific objectives of safeguarding currently are and ought to be.  All will have views on this as well as on the effectiveness of safeguarding systems currently in place.  And all will have particular interests of their own which are not necessarily articulated.

The next step is for the evaluators to identify verifiable objectives.  These will reveal which safeguarding systems and structures are working well and if not, what remedial steps would be required.  Not least, evaluators will see how spending maps onto safeguarding objectives.

To identify value for money, evaluators need to gather data on safeguarding spending.  This has been notoriously difficult to pin down as the Church either does not collect the relevant statistics centrally, nor necessarily provide information, for example to General Synod, on safeguarding expenditure by the National Church.

However, it is possible to estimate safeguarding expenditure by the dioceses and the National Church Institutions (NCIs) ahead of a full evaluation, because the main element is personnel.  A survey of all 42 diocesan safeguarding webpages showed that they employ 182 DSAs, assistants, trainers, case workers and administrative assistants.  Some work part time, but other Church officers serve on core groups/case management groups or support safeguarding through their other roles such as membership on Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Panels and General Synod; archdeacons have coal-face responsibilities and consultants are brought in e.g. to conduct case reviews, for risk assessment and to deliver training – and there are costs associated with time attending training sessions.  Salary data can be estimated from sampling job advertisements. 

In response to a General Synod question (Tim Bull, November 2021), data were provided on the staff on the National Safeguarding Team (NST) and gross expenditure from 2016 – 2020; these can be extrapolated.  The NST currently employs 26.5 FTE staff/consultants and spends approximately £4.4 million/year.  Other NCI staff having safeguarding as part of their portfolio come from comms, ministry, legal and HR departments.  Members of the National Safeguarding Working Group based in Church House service the National Safeguarding Steering Group and contribute to safeguarding work by the Archbishops’ Council, the House of Bishops, General Synod and other bodies. 

Reputational managers and external lawyers, who in turn contract medical experts for advice in civil cases, also add to the costs of safeguarding along with insurance.  In addition, the Church brings in consultants and temporary staff to conduct audits and Past Cases Reviews, plus ‘lessons learned’ reviews in cases of major safeguarding failures.  Although precision is difficult, costs estimates are possible based on information in the public domain, familiarity with consultancy rates and indicative research data. 

Bishops’ expenses are covered by the Church Commissioners, who paid for external lawyers involved with IICSA. 

There are safeguarding meetings, ‘Safeguarding Summits’, conferences and workshops (although blended and online meetings have lowered costs).

There are also payments to survivors bringing civil suits, through the Interim Support Scheme plus money for counselling and therapeutic support, most often from dioceses. 

It goes beyond the scope of this particular exercise to make detailed estimates of current safeguarding expenditure; it might come to about £30 million/year for the Church as a whole.  However, one thing seems clear to me.  The CofE safeguarding apparatus employs or contracts a great many people in an ever-expanding process with the creation of more new and revised policies, more updated training, more reviews, more audits and a concomitant increase in expenditure.  There is a proliferation of new bodies (Safe Spaces, the National Safeguarding Panel, the Interim Support Scheme, the Independent Safeguarding Board and a Redress Fund under development) that together consume a great deal of time and money; they employ or contract more and more people.

What safeguarding achievements can be attributed to each activity?  Does the associated expenditure represent ‘value for money’?  A comprehensive, independent evaluation would need to answer these questions.  However, based on my experience as research director for an evaluation of a 25-country European programme with structural similarities to the CofE, I would expect that savings of at least half of current expenditure could be achieved if the Church’s safeguarding structures and activities were to be rationalized.  Some of the money saved could be redirected towards achieving the verified objectives identified by the evaluators as insufficiently resourced. 

Church safeguarding culture can be assessed through (1) examining IICSA evidence;  and (2) benchmarking against other denominations and secular sectors such as aviation and healthcare whose safety records outperform the Church. 

Safeguarding cannot simply be a matter of complying with edicts handed down from the National Church.  The objectives of safeguarding need precise articulation, along with their respective importance / value. 

All the laws in the world do not prevent crime; nor does the Church’s adversarial approach to safeguarding protect survivors or those facing allegations – along with their families and congregations.

We must never forget the ‘core business’ of the Church.  It is Christianity.  Living the faith involves confession, repentance, efforts to set right the damage done and asking for forgiveness.  Christians are expected to take responsibility for their sins – and for the harm done to others.  A hierarchical system based on adversarial processes to deal with safeguarding failures is inherently dangerous.  And the trend towards employing more non-Christian people with secular work experience based on putting adherence to rules ahead of the well-being of people exacerbates the dangers at the expense of the vulnerable.  We need to put the love of God and of our fellow human beings first, as Jesus did when healing on the Sabbath.  That is our calling and our discipleship.

***************

Dr Josephine Anne Stein

Independent researcher, policy analyst and survivor of ecclesiastical abuse

by David Brown

All bullying represents a breach of our Lord’s second great commandment – ‘to love your neighbour as yourself’. There is mounting evidence of the bullying of parish clergy by their overseers in our Church, whether through avoidance or misuse of the existing disciplinary measures.  This represents a failure in both following Christ’s commandment and episcopal leadership.  Such behaviour, observed across several dioceses, is causing real personal harm, but, though reported by many voices, this is consistently unheeded.  There is, therefore, an urgent demand to scrutinise the culture that allows for such behaviour.  If such allegations are correct, the Church of England has lost its way and is seriously off message.  It risks being an organisation in denial, distracting itself with memories of its former moral authority and with ideas of exceptionalism and entitlement, described in the IICSA Report as a “culture of clericalism”. 

The question arises how our Lord’s commandment appears overlooked in the institutional Church.  In this article, I compare Christian living today with the biblical revelation on how we should live as individuals.

Jesus spoke to Peter in words seldom noticed today, ‘I will build my Church….’ (Matt 16.18). Today’s Church seems determined to build itself organisationally, with Church leaders applying much effort and considerable finance to the objective of Church Growth rather than Kingdom Growth, somehow conflating the two, promoting what Angela Tilby as describes ‘organisational thinking….so making our bishops and deans believe they are meant to be organisation men and women, managers, top-down thinkers.’ This leads to the promotion and implementation of approaches like ‘Mission Action Planning’, and other initiatives that don’t spring from local parish life.

Any striving for worldly success, however worthy, gives rise to ambition and competitiveness. When this serves ill-defined concepts of ‘success’ and how it may be measured, we have a recipe for undermining, rather than promoting, the work of the Church. Such an approach is surely the utter reverse of the model that Jesus gave with the washing of the disciples’ feet at the Last Supper, servant leadership. One explanation for increasing reports of clergy feeling bullied might lie on the pressure senior clergy feel to succeed. Does not a skewed focus on ‘Church Leadership’ distract from a greater focus on ‘Christ Followership’?

I find nothing significant in the New Testament about church rank.  Its presence in the Body of Christ is therefore problematic. It doesn’t sit well with the ‘servant’ role, of which Jesus gave an accurate demonstration, his own intention being ‘to be among you as one who serves’.  It requires and then creates an ever-deepening humility.  I think a lack of rank-consciousness may be glimpsed in Gal 2.11. The apostles had freedom to disagree and challenge. However, both Jesus and St Paul, because of their God-given roles, had to be tough and demanding on more than one occasion, neither were ever punitive.  In any organisation, it is important for everyone to have a clear understanding of what is expected of them, with accountability for proper performance an essential feature.  The inherited culture and language within the Church has failed to address this.

Similarly, the New Testament does not describe either Jesus or St Paul devising, rolling out and imposing any strategic plan on others. The word ‘plan’ and its variations appear in the gospels solely describing the manoeuvres of the High Priest, scribes and Pharisees (e.g. John 11.53;12.10; Acts 25.3). Jesus’ approach was to set a living example.  The Apostles were not being obedient to strategy documents (Acts 5.20; Acts 10 – Peter and Cornelius). Paul was directed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 13), not a Mission Action Plan. To a remarkable degree, his life was dominated by severe circumstances—expelled from synagogues and cities, often imprisoned, shipwrecked four times, adrift at sea for a night and day, and having spontaneous visions. All these defined God’s way for him. If Paul had focused on safe-guarding his reputation, his apostleship would have been very different.

Where the apostles went, the Kingdom grew. It was a combination of being invited, being obedient to God and the Lord’s transforming power that affected the people they encountered. The reality of God was conveyed by the apostles’ lifestyles, and by the words given to them to use. God’s presence and fragrant love were palpable. They were not adopting management techniques but following God’s pattern demonstrated in Jesus. This involved engagement with people wherever they were found.  They were not seeking to build any organisational structure.

After his resurrection, Jesus said to his followers, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” (John 19.20-23). Is this today’s pattern? Are we consciously sent out, like Jesus, in the Spirit’s power, seeking to change people’s lives for the better? Or do we, embarrassed by this task, offer to our confused world a jumble of doctrines, liturgy, visual effects and concepts which do not readily connect with those without a faith in the living God?  To what extent are the Gifts and the Fruit of the Spirit looked for and discerned in the appointment of Church Leaders?

God’s revealed way is not necessarily intellectual. Jesus’ main longing in his prayer in John 17 for people to communicate his glory (vs.1-10) and his unity (vs.20-24). Surely these are the ‘world-changers’ for his Church to channel, their significance being that neither can be faked – they are either palpable or absent. Genuine demonstration and display of Christ-like behaviours in everyday life can, on their own, bring conviction of God’s present reality, much more than liturgical ritual or any contrived special techniques.

What kind of leadership is adopted is key, a topic not notably addressed. The concept of ‘leadership’ can too easily be interpreted as one in which one person directs another—the idea of a reciprocal relationship in which each party can learn from the other being totally absent.  Any ‘Leadership training’ not based on gospel values will be counterproductive, if it prompts striving for results by control-techniques, and managerialism. ‘Leadership skills’ have great value if they nourish the led and foster godly relationships, a proper father-son/parent-child relationship where space is allowed in which to develop a healthy degree of individuality.  Although the Son, one feels that Christ was still his own man. Powerful teaching and training is best achieved through example, something, sadly, overlooked in too many places, diminishing leader/led relationships as a consequence.

Translating policies into actions requires appropriate systems.  However, systems involve people and so a proper understanding of how people function in all their diversity is paramount.  Is this not where senior clergy fail?  Little can be achieved without cooperation.  This is not gained by directives and coercion, but by persuasion and sound argument, winning hearts and minds.  A culture of cooperation is not aided by our church’s pattern of independence at all levels, whether it is diocesan bishops to archbishops, archdeacons to bishops, parish priests to archdeacons or to the laity they serve, each operates in personal fiefdoms. Cooperation and coordinated effort seem undervalued, with some episcopal actions often appearing more punitive than compassionate and restorative.

Should not the qualities such as being filled with love through the Spirit, being a self-disciplined follower of ‘the Way,’ possessing integrity, self-denial, and trust in God to direct their path, an ability to ‘read a landscape’ and to relate well with others, be necessities in the leaders of the Church? Leadership qualities may be enhanced through training, but are they not supremely secured by the Spirit-led appointment of those whom God has prepared, as Christ was prepared?

An emphasis on ‘measurable success’, ‘church growth’ and ’leadership skills’ is deflection from the core need to deploy love and risks opening the door to bullying. With mounting pressures to ‘succeed’—for leaders’ own ego, advancement or to ensure financial viability—will not human ‘initiatives increase, together with pressure on front-line clergy to demonstrate ‘ministerial effectiveness’? Failure to achieve is easily interpreted as being obstructive and bullying becomes only a ‘whisker’ away. Leaders, unless they walk in the Spirit, will fail to recognise the natural dangers of a situation they have created and then deal with others disrespecting their dignity.

So, what might be done about the bullying of clergy by their overseers? Oswald Chambers reminds us    “If we trust to our wits instead of to God, we produce consequences for which God will hold us responsible. …. Our natural life must not rule, God must rule in us.” (‘My Utmost for His Highest’, 28th Dec, cf. Matt 18.3).

The secular societies have progressed from autocracies to democracies, regulating the exercise of power.  The Church needs to go on a similar journey, however painful it might be, recognising this elephant in the room underlying much unhappiness.  Recourse to legal means to impose episcopal will smacks of Robert Maxwell.  All Christians, not least leaders, must arrest any slide into a culture in the Church that oppresses, rather than one underpinned by mutual respect and compassion, regaining confidence in that ministry pattern described by St Paul (|Romans 8.4-8)

The expression ‘lessons learned’ in a review of some poorly managed safeguarding episode, always fills the reader with a sense of déjà vu.  We ask ourselves the disrespectful question, how many more lessons learned reviews do we need before the Church gets the central point of how and why things can go so disastrously wrong in safeguarding events?

In every review of past safeguarding cases there are normally at least three components.   The first is the account of criminal sexual activity against a child or vulnerable adult.  Many of the cases, but not all, have ended up with criminal prosecutions and imprisonment for the perpetrators.  The second part is the reaction to the victim/survivor by relatives and people with professional responsibilities.  The third section is the examination of protocols and paper trails that help to reveal who did or knew what and when.  Of the three, the first is the most painful to read.  It is also the part of the review that provides the least scope for comment.  How many times can a commentator say, this is wicked/criminal behaviour?  The second section is worthy of comment.  If an individual has suffered and, for various reasons, they have not received a compassionate caring response, this is likely to have compounded the evil of the original malevolent act.  The third aspect, the failure of protocols and process, can be blamed on the common, but not necessarily wicked, weakness and sloppiness of those entrusted with the task of maintaining records and following procedures correctly.

When we come to examine the Independent Learning Lessons Case Review – Graham Gregory, we find all three aspects of a typical safeguarding report present.  The abuse and the failures of care are chronicled and then we have the astonishing carelessness in the preservation of records to illuminate these past events.  Girls and young women were abused over a thirty-year period by Graham Gregory.  Opportunities for checking this criminal behaviour were repeatedly missed.  Ray Galloway, the Reviewer, has produced a piece of work of high quality.  This in no way tries to avoid trenchant criticisms of protocol, management, along with a continuing failure to care for survivors in this bitterly shameful episode for the Church of England.   Abuse at the hands of Gregory took place in London and the North of England over his entire active ministry of 30 years.  Even at the time of his early retirement in 1995, the Church of England had still not identified Gregory as an active danger to vulnerable girls and young women, in spite the valiant attempts of his victims to speak to those in authority.

Of the three identified aspects of a Safeguarding Review, I intend to comment further only on the second, the response of authority figures.  Some of the accounts of the young girls trying to attract the attention of their own parents following the abuse are tragic, but it is the failure of church officers/dignitaries that I find even more shocking.  For the remainder of this commentary, I want to tell the story of three encounters between the young victims and professional outsiders.  In one case it was the meeting with a psychiatrist by a victim (by then an adult); in the other two cases it was a face-to-face meeting with a Church of England bishop soon after the abusive events.  Were things really so inept in the past, before the widespread acceptance in the Church of England that the Church had a real problem with sexual abuse among its clergy?   One sentence, repeated several times in the Review, states tellingly: No specific examples of Good Practice were identified on behalf of the Diocese of X.

One encounter that is recorded in the report is between a survivor known as Victim B occurred at a very late stage in the process after Gregory had been sentenced to prison in 2017.   Victim B had experienced abuse in the 1960s and already had been through the ordeal of testifying in court.  She then had to suffer the further humiliation of facing a psychiatrist who, no doubt working for an insurance company, was trying to claim that her abuse had left behind little harm.  The psychiatrist is not named, but such treatment by mental health professionals on behalf of the Church is recorded in other cases known to me.  Victim B told the Reviewer her story in these words.  It is shockingly awful…. it’s a travesty.   Once you have gone through the court and the man has gone to prison, you’ve gone over the awfulness so many times, blow me down, if they’re going to give you anything you have to go and say it all again to a psychiatrist, who’s desperately trying to find you have no symptoms at all, nothing at all, and they can give you as little money as possible.’

Victim F suffered a troubling and inappropriate intervention by the Diocesan bishop after her abuse at the hands of Gregory.  At that time, (in the 80s) she was still an 8-year-old child and, with her mother, in awe of such an important person.  The visit took place within a week of the abusive event.  In Victim F’s words, I remember him (the bishop) coming to see us and he said, ah well, that’s an awful thing to happen and he will have to go.  And will you promise not to tell anybody.  That was the worst thing, when you think about it now, him telling us not to say anything to anybody… I remember him saying that, I promise you, if you don’t say anything to anybody, he’ll be gone within six months.  Even though this conversation took place before church safeguarding protocols were set down, it is an appalling re-abuse of a vulnerable exploited child.  Gregory did move a year later but with a letter of commendation which did not mention anything about this episode of abuse.  The Diocese of Southwell thus had to receive a priest with a chequered past.  They were totally unaware of his history as a dangerous paedophile.

Another survivor, known as Victim G, also had a meeting with a Diocesan bishop in the 90s.  The latter felt it appropriate to invite Gregory to this meeting, as though a serious alleged case of sexual crime could be resolved by a process of reconciliation.  Fortunately, Victim G was supported by someone in the Diocese who was a highly experienced social worker.  Victim G read a prepared statement to Gregory that outlined how the abuse she had suffered had destroyed her childhood.  The bishop, who was present sat back in his chair with an air of detachment with the whole thing having, apparently, nothing to do with him.  Gregory’s response was a muttered I know, I get that now’.  The bishop himself having heard the statement then attempted to close the conversation down by outlining the complexities of a consistory court, and how difficult it would be to prove the offence.  Victim G was never offered the option of going to the police or even allowed to tell her story in full to the bishop.  Because her story had not been believed by the bishop, the whole process seemed to stall.  One feels that an act of gross pastoral failure had been perpetrated on this occasion.

The three vignettes that I have outlined from the 87-page Gregory Review may well have shocked my readers as much as they have shocked me.  One episcopal encounter dates back to the 80s and the other to the 90s.    The recent encounter with the psychiatrist took place within the past 10 years.  The biblical lament of ‘How long, O Lord, how long?’ comes to mind.  Can we eventually expect to see the end of crass insensitive treatment of survivors in the next ten years?  I have passed over the mislaying and probable destruction of records that the detailed report reveals.  This too probably reflects, on the part of someone, a callous disregard for the cause of survivors.  No one wants to hear about such episodes of cruel behaviour.  The failure of care for the abused, whether by management sloppiness or pastoral cruelty, is deeply wounding and damaging to the whole Church.  These are failures of integrity.  To misquote Scripture:  Where there is no integrity, the Church perishes!

When I was a very small child I was introduced to the idea of temptation and evil by a vivid, even frightening, picture in a book.  There was a small boy with two beings sitting on him, one on each shoulder.  The first was an angel and the other a small devilish creature, complete with tail and fork.  The reason for sitting on the shoulder was to give each ‘influencer’ ready access to the boy’s ears.  Temptation was being presented as a matter of whether or not we were listening and acting on what the devil was whispering to us.

However crude and simplistic this picture is, it is probably typical of the way that a Christian understanding of temptation was presented to children of my generation. In short, sin and evil were the consequence of individuals not listening to their consciences (the angel) but rather following a compulsion to go their own selfish way (the devil). With the wisdom of adulthood available to us now, we are able to see how such notions may still be distorting our thinking about evil. It is easy to believe that our involvement and responsibility for evil only occurs when we engage in personal lapses of conscience.  Our responsibility for any wider evil goes beyond that. There is such a thing, as we shall see, as corporate evil.  This can drag us into its grip and, in some way, we become part of it in varying degrees.  Our failure here is not necessarily the result of ignoring our individual consciences but may involve failures of caution, wisdom or imagination.  In short, there is nothing simple about our confrontations with evil.  Nor are there simple ways to establish our degree of culpability when we meet it in its capacity to damage, even destroy, our lives and the lives of others.

The idea that evil in the world is always the result of wrong decisions by individuals operating independently, is a notion deeply embedded in our thinking.  There are two important ways in which this crude initial picture is misleading and, at times, completely unhelpful.  When we examine the settings in which the temptation to do evil occurs, it quickly becomes apparent that there is a lot more going than a single conscience leading someone to wrong decisions or evil actions.  The culpability, the blame we attach to individuals fighting temptation will vary according to a whole variety of factors.  For example, we may make allowances for a child who has never received any moral guidance or ‘good-enough’ parenting to help them understand ideas of good and evil.  Evil deeds are sometimes perpetrated in the context of a desperate need simply to survive.  We should always be prepared to examine the influences on an individual who has chosen in some way to go over to the dark side.   The influence of a group, a dysfunctional family or a gang can be very strong, even irresistible.  Such evil pressures do not excuse the individual act, but they certainly help us to understand it. Evil can descend on to an individual because of the geographical area in which an offender has been brought up, or the social circles they move in.  One question in such a situation has to be this.  Where do we locate the evil?  Is it only in the individual concerned or can we find it somewhere else, within a group that has seduced a vulnerable individual into its ranks? We soon discover that there is something we call corporate or social evil.  This form of evil is very hard to pin down or say where precisely it is to be found.  As with any other form of evil, it must be resisted and opposed.   But social evils are far harder to deal with and it may take a generation or two to root out particular evils, like racial prejudice, misogyny or homophobia.

Within every corporate organisation or institution there are certain predictable forces or dynamics at work.  Many of these will be morally neutral.  The desire by a firm to create a product which is valuable to society, at the same time making a profit to reward investors, is compatible with wholesome ethical behaviour.  The management of such a manufacturing company will also be guided by one overriding dynamic, the need to preserve itself in the present and have the strength to survive into the future.  Other organisations, like the Church, will also have this same fundamental drive for self-preservation and expansion.  In pursuit of this aim, they will use a variety of methods to protect themselves from any threats to their existence.  We see the same fundamental self-preserving dynamic in the world of nature, from the largest animals down to the smallest cellular creature.  Whatever an animal does to protect itself and reproduce itself is not judged by standards of right and wrong.  The task of self-preservation within the Church is also normally a neutral act.  As with every organisation, the Church has the right to defend itself in appropriate ways.  The deployment of lawyers, publicity experts and reputation polishers can all relate to the activity of a Church when it is in a justified self-protective mode. There is, however, a line that is crossed when ethical self-preservation methods become immoral and unethical.  The Church’s desire for survival can sometimes negate its ethical standards and claims of total integrity.  We note here two examples of unethical behaviour can be given from the reported catalogue of safeguarding failures of the last ten years.  Church reputation managers may decide that a person persistently asking awkward question about decisions made in the past needs to be forcibly side-lined and their reputation challenged.  The ‘dirty tricks’ department swings into operation in an effort to isolate and pressurise the individual concerned.  When innuendo, lies and rumour spreading are employed against an individual in an effort to undermine him/her, we are clearly describing an institution moving to immoral evil behaviour.

 Among other examples of immoral behaviour in an institution such as the church, is in the use of silence.  This weapon of silence, used unethically, can operate in a variety of ways.  Among the examples are the letters and emails that are sent to the church authorities from abuse survivors, but which go unanswered.  Any refusal to answer legitimate questions about the past can be seen as involving a serious unethical treatment of a complainant.  Another use of silence is when an order goes out from the centre forbidding contact or any sharing of legitimate information with suffering abuse survivors.  The whole institution gets into a situation of moral paralysis as this clamming up process shuts down the Christian virtues of love, openness and mutuality.  They are replaced by a claustrophobic secrecy which excludes all but the elite powerbrokers at the centre.  The Church is supposed to stand for justice and fair play.  Neither of these are in evidence when church authority uses its power to control people and information by simply shutting everyone else out through the use of silence.

When evil acts are committed by individuals within an organisation, the effect of these actions has a tendency to spread right across the organisation, corrupting the entire body.  This can happen even if the perpetrator is speedily identified and punished.  All the individual members of the institution may be innocent of any of this evil but, somehow, the sense of corporate shame can percolate right across the organisation.  When we try to describe this corporate sense of shame, it is very hard to locate it or suggest ways to remove it.  In such a situation we can see how inappropriate the crude picture of evil that we started with has become.  There has been no listening to a private angel or devil, but evil has still invaded the lives of all the members of the institution simply by virtue of their membership.  Individual innocence does not protect them from the guilt and shame which attaches itself to the whole institution and the members of it.

I had wanted to go further and discuss the way that institutions, even nations, have the power to incubate and propagate destructive evil within their cultures.  These cultures can actively suck otherwise innocent people into their terrifying ideologies and ways of behaviour.  Ordinary people can find themselves spouting the most appalling hatreds which reflect the prevailing political or ideological climate around them.  Trump’s America has corrupted many millions of people with its poisonous rhetoric, aping similar dynamics prevalent in Hitler’s Germany.  The important point that is being made here is to state that evil can pervade institutions and societies in a variety of ways.   Evil works its nefarious purposes, not by tempting individuals one by one, but by contaminating entire institutions and organisations, creating norms of thought and behaviour that are normally considered repellent and evil.   In our day, the smiling face of corruption is not absent even from our churches.  It takes the hard work of people of goodwill and Christian insight and integrity to identify and call out such evil that may be going on even in our own trusted institutions.  That was the task of the prophets of the Old Testament, to challenge institutional evil and assumptions. It behoves all of us who have a sensitivity to the presence of evil to name it and to challenge those who remain insensitive to its power.  That power, especially in its corporate form, can harm and corrupt the thinking of so many.  To challenge corporate evil means that we have to be thinking in quite different ways from the devil on the shoulder imagery.  Personal evil still exists, but far more insidious is the evil that takes root in the institutions of our land.  This, as we are leaning to our cost, includes the churches that were once believed always to be the main bastions against the devil’s power.  That seems to be true no longer.

by Anonymous

(Editor) I want my reader to imagine a far away country with a totally dysfunctional legal system.  The courts follow no consistent protocols for determining guilt or innocence.  The only thing necessary for a guilty verdict is that there has to have been an accusation of some kind.  If a child makes an accusation, then the reasons for the acceptance of guilt against an accused are reinforced.  The motto that seems to be engraved above the judge/jury’s seat is ‘the child must be believed’.  Into this crazy court, which does not bother to employ any actual lawyers, comes a man.  He is accused of the indecent touch of a child.  The police have examined the case and have found nothing worthy of investigation. Initially the accused is hopeful of finding justice but one by one the planks of his defence are denied him.  In the first place the child complainant cannot remember the precise date when the offence took place or even where.  It might have been one of three dates (or all three!).  This makes it hard to present a defence. The fact is that, for at least one of the dates mentioned, the accused was out of the country. This cannot be brought forward as evidence.   Indeed, in this dysfunctional court, there seems absolutely no interest in establishing what might be the truth.  Registers of attendance for the child exist but they are blocked from scrutiny.  A witness is also prepared to come forward to tell what she knows about possible days when the accused and the complainant might have been in the same space.  This testimony is ruled out of order because seemingly, it might interfere with the narrative created by the prosecution.  The accused man continues to protest his innocence.  The court then tries to do a deal.   If you sign this piece of paper admitting the offence, you can go free.  Our accused is a man of principle.  Freedom obtained through colluding with a lie is not a freedom worth having.  This is  topsy-turvy justice, but it also represents the justice protocols followed by a diocese in the Church of England in the prosecution of a man called ‘Kenneth’.  This is the reality at work in one example of the church’s disciplinary processes and perhaps church justice in general. Kenneth’s anonymous friend and supporter takes up the story.

Another Episode in the Kenneth Saga

This is the third episode in the ongoing saga of my friend of fifty-six years, Kenneth. Not his real name of course, but given that might identify other people, for this blog we shall call him Kenneth. You will need to read the previous two episodes in order to fully understand this one. The first one, published December 13th 2021 was written by Stephen Parsons and the second one January 7th 2022 written by myself. At the end of my previous blog I promised you a report on a meeting to be held on January 12th 2022.

There was indeed a meeting on January 12th and although when Kenneth entered the room, alone, there were three agendas on the table which in the event were never used. Instead Kenneth suggested that those present, the Church Safeguarding Officer and the Assistant Safeguarding Adviser(ASA), should face up to the dysfunctional way in which his case had been dealt with. This occupied most of the afternoon. At the end they looked shocked and said that Kenneth had spoken strongly and they had heard him. There had been no discussion on the Safeguarding Agreement, the following week Kenneth received an email from the ASA with an attachment. The only word to describe this document is ‘bullying‘.

The Attachment:

This was a document listing the purpose of the Safeguarding Agreement and the points with which they wanted Kenneth to agree. It was stressed that this document was highly confidential and Kenneth was instructed not to share it with anyone until eventually he had signed it. What is written in it they are so afraid of anyone else reading? Is it the same reason they do not reveal the information in the choristers’ registers of attendance? In any case Kenneth wants to show the document to his solicitor before he signs anything. Why are they trying to prevent him doing this? Remember at the beginning of all this in 2020 they wanted to prevent him having a solicitor present at any meeting. They made enquiries and must have been told it was beyond their remit, because no more was said and the solicitor was in attendance at meetings.

Kenneth replied to that email saying, ‘Technically this is known as a “gagging order”, which I cannot agree to. My intention would be to discuss these proposals fully, first with my solicitor and second with my friend,both of whom you know.’ There was no written reply to this but it was discussed at the next meeting, February 2nd.

When the allegation was first made in March 2020, all the clergy connected to his church were told not to have any communication with him. Kenneth, who has no family in this country, regarded the church as his ‘family’, so effectively the core group took away his family and now are attempting to cut him off from his friends by telling him not to discuss with them what is worrying him. Their merciless power seems to be ultimate and unaccountable. What does the Core Group imagine the outcome could be on his mental health doing this? There is no reason or justice in this. Do the Bishops applaud and condone what is being done in their name?

The Meeting

Kenneth had a meeting on Wednesday February 2nd with the Church Safeguarding Officer and the Assistant Safeguarding Adviser.

A further form of bullying is that no notes or minutes are written down by anyone at these meetings. Our notes are dependent upon Kenneth’s memory of what was said as soon as possible after the meeting, which he tells me and I then type out. This does seem an amateurish way of recording minutes.  Not writing formal minutes or even taking notes at meetings makes it easy later, when challenged, for two people in agreement with each other to claim Kenneth has ‘misunderstood ‘ what has been said. At this meeting they denied any attempt at ‘gagging’ him, but Kenneth pointed out that it had been written to him in an email and therefore there could be no misunderstanding. The author of the email said she was sorry Kenneth had interpreted her instruction to maintain confidentiality as ‘gagging’ him, but she had not been a good communicator in this instance and that the document is a starting point for negotiation. ‘Not been a good communicator in this instance’. What other instances has she failed to be a good communicator? When else in the past twenty-three months has she failed to communicate effectively? What an admittance!

There were other denials and contradictions of what had been said and done in past meetings and an attempt to justify their actions. This can be shown as contrary to evidence we have provided throughout the past twenty-three months.

The worst thing said at this meeting was there would be no scrutiny of any evidence and no investigation, meaning that Kenneth cannot contest their decision of being ‘high risk’ and therefore if he wants to go back to church again he must accept whatever safeguarding procedures are appropriate for a high risk person.  We have appealed to different organisations of the Church, but Kenneth is a lay person and they only counsel the ordained. We even wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who not surprisingly passed it to a Provincial Safeguarding Advisor (PSA) who said (place names have been omitted) ‘The matters you refer to are essentially a complaint about how the diocese has managed a safeguarding complaint through the core group process. Neither the Archbishop, nor the National Safeguarding Team, have the jurisdiction to investigate such complaints. Complaints must be directed towards the Diocese’

We did this but the answer was effectively to say ‘this has already been dealt with under our Safeguarding procedure…….the matter is now closed’. Although I had sent a detailed, well evidenced document about our complaints which the PSA said he had ‘skimmed through’, it was not realised by Lambeth Palace that we were complaining about these same safeguarding procedures.

The Core Group constantly say that they are following the House of Bishops Guidance and their mantra is, ‘on the balance of probabilities we have to believe that you might have done it’. In view of the boy and his mother’s contradictory stories surely it could be claimed that on the balance of probabilities the boy, could be telling a whole tissue of lies. Not to consider this is discriminatory against Kenneth.

Whilst claiming it is not their role to investigate, judge, seek the truth, scrutinise any evidence or doubt the boy, although asked many times, the Core Group has failed to give the section or page reference in the House of Bishops Guidance where this is said. I, on the other hand can identify 15 procedures relating to respondents and 5 general instructions which they have not followed.

I make no apology for having mentioned this in my previous blog because it is the crux of the whole way in which this case has been handled; a constant reiteration that the Core Group are following the House of Bishops Guidance, which they plainly are not.

The core group is unaccountable and answerable to no-one.  They apparently can do as they like and, without any evidence otherwise, seem to be making it up as they go along.

The meeting ended with a promise to send Kenneth a new draft of the Safeguarding Agreement sometime the following week and which is  still based on a risk assessment of 2020 and not the one in 2021. No arrangements were made for any future meeting. Between two previous meetings in 2021 ten weeks had elapsed with no communication. Little wonder the case has dragged on for twenty-three months and still counting. Such a dilatory, lackadaisical attitude is totally unacceptable. Even the independent investigator, engaged to investigate the procedures only and not the allegation itself, said in his review of August 2021 that, ‘without strong and decisive leadership it [the case] seems to have drifted and meandered’.

In one month it will be exactly two years since Kenneth was told of the allegation and so it goes on and on and on with no end in sight.

Kenneth has serious health issues and is almost 77 years old. How long do they think he can continue with this level of persecution? He has been part of that church for sixty years with clean DBS checks throughout. Nothing has ever been proved against him. Surely he can be left to live out his old age in peace and without being bullied by authorities in the Church of England.

Postscript: This account links back indirectly to the story of NST failing to act quickly in the Percy case. It is also pertinent to the powerful speech given by Gavin Drake at General Synod on February 9th calling for something beyond ‘moral authority’ in the oversight of the NST. Martyn’s and Kenneth’s stories clearly need an ombudsman to appeal to but such a figure does not at present exist. The incompetence continues.

Anonymous wishes to add as an addendum

‘I should like to add here a comment to note how similar is Kenneth’s case to that of J in the opening chapter of  ‘The Trial’ by Kafka and now, after almost two years, in chapter seven of that book the events in the life of J are almost the same as those of K.

‘Somebody must have laid false information against Josef K.; for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested’. 

He is shortly summoned before the inspector, who does not know what the charges are either but tells K. that he is free to continue living his life as usual. K. goes to the bank where he works and is later told that a series of hearings will be taking place on Sundays………..

One of Kafka’s best-known works. Although written in 1914-15 and published 1925 after his death, it has become synonymous with the anxieties and sense of alienation of the modern age and with an ordinary person’s struggle against an unreasoning and unreasonable authority.’

It is always tempting, when a long-standing dispute is resolved, to want to move on with a large sigh of relief.  The Christ Church Oxford saga may seem to have come to an end, with a mediated settlement agreed with the Dean, the Christ Church Governing Body and the complainant Ms X.   The reality is that in any dispute that has been going for four years, that there are likely to be many stones that have been turned over to reveal a dark grimy underside.  The glimpses of shameful behaviour among some of the participants in the drama, leave the onlooker feeling decidedly uncomfortable.  Questions about motives remain, and are, in many cases, unanswered.  A settlement may have been found, but the history of all that preceded it cannot be so quickly dispensed with or pushed to one side.

Among the many written documents and articles that can illuminate our understanding of the drama, there is one that appeared a week ago in the Tablet by Canon Angela Tilby.  It is one of the most vivid accounts I have seen, particularly because it gives us an inside/outside perspective that few people in fact possess.  Tilby writes as a partial insider from her time as a cathedral canon at Christ Church from 2011-2016.  Then, she was involved with the appointment of Percy in 2014 as Dean, representing the Cathedral Chapter on the interviewing panel.  On that occasion, she listened to Percy expound his ideas on college governance and administration and what he would do to make the College more open-ended, with a greater emphasis on inclusiveness.  After her retirement, Tilby continued to visit the College in various capacities, maintaining contact with several former colleagues in the Cathedral and College.  The first complaints against Percy she heard were shared with her by one of the members of the Governing Body, Canon Sarah Foot, in the summer of 2018.  It was impossible to find out precisely what Percy was supposed to have done but the consensus was that the misdemeanour was ‘very serious’.

The serious crime allegedly committed by Percy seems, from the available evidence, to be one of having disturbed the status-quo of the College.  Power in the Governing Body is held by a small group of ‘censors’ who convene the entire Governing Body of some sixty strong.  The real power behind the scenes is to be found in the group of ex-censors.  Following their term of office, former censors continue to retain much of their old influence within the College.  Tilby describes these ex-censors as ’tribal elders’.  Nothing is done in the College without their approval.  Sir Andrew Smith had also noted how these elders were wielding a great deal of social and political power.   A conflict was perhaps almost an inevitability if a new Dean, interested in governance reform, were to challenge the vested interests of this group of present and former censors. The majority of the other members of the Governing Body were loath to get involved in matters of decision making and governance, so the power to manage the College was wielded by quite a small group.  Previous Deans seem to have done little to challenge this power wielded by the elders. 

The first area of conflict between the Dean and those who opposed him, arose after a widely publicised episode involving a medical student, Lavinia Woodward.  She injured her boyfriend by stabbing him in the leg with a bread knife in December 2016.  The case threw up a range of issues about who in the College was responsible for managing the safeguarding and protection of students.  It seems that Percy was unhappy with the existing protocols for safeguarding, and several meetings were held on the topic in the first part of 2017.  This enquiry led into other issues, especially around the area of financial management.  One topic that was raised was whether the formula for calculating academic and other salaries was still fit for purpose, as Christ Church was out of line with other Colleges, and this was a recent development. But the Salaries Board refused to disclose its workings and methods, and requests for clarity were met with absurdist opacity.  Superficially this gave the impression that Percy was interfering with the governance of the College to obtain a pay-rise for himself, but that does not seem to have been a fair reading of the situation. When the conflict escalated to become a formal complaint by his detractors under some archaic statutes of the College, Percy was accused of ‘conduct of an immoral, scandalous or disgraceful nature incompatible with the duties of the office…’ 

An extremely costly Tribunal under Sir Andrew Smith, a former High Court Judge was held in the summer of 2019.  In August the conclusions were published, and Smith dismissed all the charges against Percy.  Although Percy was allowed to return to work, the atmosphere in the College remained hostile and the accusers refused to reimburse the huge sums expended by him in having legal support at the Tribunal.  In addition, more rumours about Percy were being fed to the Press in apparent attempts to smear his name. 

In March 2020, a church-led enquiry was opened to investigate the accusation that Percy had mishandled four alleged “historic safeguarding concerns” within the College.  Although this case was not within the purview of the Church of England, a Core-Group was convened by the Diocese and NST. Percy refused to be suspended – there were no actual individuals complaining, just the College manufacturing “concerns”. Two further “concerns” were then added by the College. The Diocesan and College lawyers emerged as primary originators in each of these six cases. It was only in September 2020 that Percy was found to have acted appropriately by the NST and allowed to return to work. However, the College refused to accept the NST judgment.

A few weeks later, the final episode – a seventh safeguarding allegation – was made. This new but clearly related conflict between Dean and both the College and Church began in October 2020.  It is in connection with that stage of the drama that the recently announced settlement is purportedly concerned.  An alleged incident of unwanted ‘hair-touching’ was reported to have taken place on October 4^th.  The incident sparked yet another suspension by Church and College. 

Again, as with the previous six “safeguarding concerns” the same lawyers acting for the Diocese and the College were involved in curating and escalating the allegation, making sure through Luther Pendragon (PR) that the media were prejudicially briefed. Percy has all the emails from the journalists, NST and others, which are from the lawyers and Luther Pendragon, planting detrimental stories against him. The Diocesan lawyers also made sure the Dean’s evidence in the internal investigation was redacted, or in some cases, simply ignored.  The lawyers denied involvement in the internal investigation, despite setting its terms of reference, and also helping finalise the notorious bogus “Risk Assessments”. 

Although some may feel that I am merely dredging up old history in the dispute, the level of vitriol that was spreading round the college at that time and since, needs some exploration.  Technically with the agreement that has now been signed, all the past events should be able to be consigned to history.  It, nevertheless, remains a stumbling block that the wording of the agreement signed a few days ago seems to be suggesting that the College dispute with the Dean has always been about a single case of hair-touching.  When we look at the whole timeline of the dispute, we have to note that there have been almost four years of persecution where allegations of sexual misconduct were implied or explicitly made.    The first charge the Dean faced in October 2018 was of “immoral, scandalous and disgraceful conduct”. Most people would assume this was sexual in nature, and not a dispute with a committee about its governance.  The College, for almost four months, refused to confirm or deny that the charge might relate to sexual misconduct or paedophilia.  They were more than happy to let the press speculate, and fed the silence with gas-lighting and innuendo.

In May 2021 the most senior legal voice in the Church of England (and fourth most senior Appeal Court Judge) declared that the alleged incident in the sacristy in itself ‘is not serious enough to merit a tribunal under the Clergy Discipline Measure’, and that both the complainant and respondent (i.e., the Dean) were ‘credible’. Yet for this single allegation there have been no fewer than five separate investigations of that incident, so it is unreasonable to suggest that anything new would have been revealed by a further College Tribunal.  At the heart of the Percy dispute is, to repeat, not a College desperate to protect the innocent and vulnerable, but one apparently fighting an all-out struggle to do everything to leave political and ideological power in the hands of the ‘tribal elders’.

To return to Tilby’s revealing article in the Tablet, she mentions that, in the first years of Percy’s tenure of office as Dean, he was very supportive of Sarah Foot, sponsoring her ordination.  Graham Ward was an unsuccessful applicant for the post of Dean in 2015.  Percy was also instrumental in the appointment of Canon Richard Peers to the post of Sub-Dean.  Both these individuals have subsequently played major roles in opposing and undermining Percy.   In the case of Peers, a CDM was eventually taken out against him because of his many alleged malign statements against Percy. In the case of Foot and Ward, their attacks on the Dean began much earlier, and stem from 2018.

The change in these three, from being supporters to attackers, is one part of the story that does not lend itself to ready explanation.  It certainly leaves behind an unsavoury blight on reputations.  The settlement does not, as far as I can tell, affect Percy’s reputation, or in any way damage it.  The same cannot be said for those who have spent so much effort, corporately and individually besmirching the reputation of a thoroughly good man.  To be attacked consistently over such a long period is a grievous experience but fortunately Percy has been able to count on the support of friends and supporters all over the world.

One further untidy loose end in the whole story of Christ Church and its Dean is the place of Bishop of Oxford.  His role throughout the process has been marked by indifference at best and hostility at worst.  Apparently, he was present at Christ Church this morning (6.2), but there was no joyous announcement of the conclusion of the affair with the Dean able immediately to resume his church duties.  The source reported that everything said by the Bishop and the Sub-Dean sounded as if it had been written by a lawyer.  The earlier statement made by the Bishop on Friday about the whole affair also had a strange reticence to engage with or show any understanding of the causes of the wider dispute between Dean and College.  The Bishop seems to have colluded with the idea in his Statement that the main problem in the dispute has always been about an alleged sexual misdemeanour.  The Dean’s CDM judgment states plainly that there was no sexual content to the conversation with the complainant (it was about donating hair to a charity making wigs for children being treated for cancer). 

Having lived only seven miles from the Dean, the Bishop must have known from the time the dispute became public (and before) that any actual sexual misbehaviour on the part of the Dean was never a credible allegation by the Censors and those who organised the original Tribunal in 2018.  Those of us who have followed the dispute over the four years were very surprised to hear about any sexual allegations.  Yet when investigated, they have always amounted to nothing, and no credible person or evidence produced.  The only common denominators that lie behind the allegations are the intentional malicious gas-lighting and innuendo, which is originated by some clergy, and a law firm and PR company acting for the Diocese. Whatever the precise nature of the ‘offence’ committed by Percy, there has never been any indication that he is a ‘sex-pest’ or a danger to every single individual in the College, making it necessary to change the locks throughout the College.

The final part of the agreement which may prove more long-lasting than any other is the promise by the College to review systems of governance.   Angela Tilby’s piece helps to remind us that that back in 2018, when the dispute came into public view, the disputes were about control and power in the College.   Percy fought hard to establish to establish secure governance structures in his first years in the College.  Although he was unsuccessful in putting such changes in place, it would seem that these reforms may, under the watchful eye of the Charity Commission, be achieved following his departure.  Wherever Dean Percy and his family go after April this year, it can be hoped that he will be allowed to work in an environment conducive to his considerable teaching and writing skills.  In this way, we trust, he will continue to make a continuing valuable contribution to the Church that he desires so passionately to serve.

I recently heard someone use this expression, emotional atrophy, when speaking about the political woes of the current British government.  They were, as the reader might be able to guess, describing the catastrophic failure of sensitivity on the part of those in power in the UK.  They were thinking of the tone-deaf and inappropriate behaviour of holding a social event in the middle of a pandemic and on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral.

 The word atrophy describes the fact that a part of an organism has never been allowed to develop or function properly.  A foot, arm, or here, the capacity for feeling respect for a grieving family, has withered through lack of use.  The organ that has atrophied still exists, but it might as well not exist since, in its withered state, it has ceased to work.  As I write these words, the political fall-out for this current example of what we might regard a grossly insensitive behaviour on the part of senior politicians, has not reached a climax.  It is clear that that the reputations of these same politicians is under serious threat for their terrible failures of sensitivity.

Moving from current matters, we have all experienced emotional atrophy in others.  As children we would have chosen other words to describe this phenomenon.  Words like snooty or stuck-up might convey the experience of a child trying to negotiate some of the grown-ups encountered beyond the family.  Some of the people about whom we used such adjectives, may well have been emotionally blunted.  Equally, many would be among those frightened of children and uncertain how to speak to them.  Society, particularly today, has made problematic the whole issue of young people and children interacting with adults outside the family.  We sadly now live in a highly polarised society where any kind of interaction with a child may be frowned upon or regarded as suspicious, even within a church setting.

Leaving to one side our memories as children and the way we then related to adults, we are acutely aware of the issues around meeting someone for the first time.  One fear we may have is of being blanked or ignored.  Fortunately, most first encounters take place in defined settings and the conventions that exist help us in knowing what to say to a complete stranger.  Formality is likely to dominate any initial interaction in a workplace environment.  This will be quite different in a party.  At a party we may allow ourselves the freedom to ask questions about a person’s background.  The same questions would normally be totally inappropriate in a work setting.  Sometimes we can work with someone for years and never discover a thing about their personal lives or their inner feelings.  The relationship is a purely contractual one.  They give the orders, and we obey (or vice-versa).  Most of us can find such a situation extremely trying, when we are engaged with another person in a working relationship and the person gives away nothing personal.  In the case of curate working with a non-communicating training incumbent, the reaction will often be simply to keep your nose clean until escape beckons.  We have on the blog discussed relationships among clergy in team situations.  Some reactions suggested that teams are always mutually affirming of all the members.  Sadly, my experience has been that if there is any trace of hierarchy in the team structure, it will be rigorously enforced.  Far more people seem to prefer the ‘safe’ environment of a defined structure than the uncertainties of open-ended relationships.  These risk exposing personal vulnerabilities.

When we look at a body of clergy in the Church of England, we might suggest that each of them, like everyone else, is to found somewhere along a spectrum between formal gravity and exuberant openness.  Each, in other words, can be described in terms of their tendency to keep all relationships carefully business-like or move in the direction of being spontaneously open, even chaotic.  It is no secret that the powers that be in the Church seem to prefer those who practise a high degree of emotional control and correctness.  They are the ones who achieve promotion.  The safe predictable types fit far better into an institutional system like the Church.  Predictability is always highly esteemed in any organisation.  Spontaneous creative personalities are less easy to control.  People who wear their heart on their sleeve must be kept safely under supervision.  The institution, here the Church of England, must always be kept safe from eccentrics and mavericks of every kind.  Alongside the word ‘sound’ so beloved by many evangelicals, we find a further word being required of candidates for high office.  That word is ‘safe’.  The connotations of these two words, whether used singly or together, imply an individual who is good at management, the avoidance of controversy, smooth administration and loyalty to the structure. 

One of the current problems in the Church of England is that many of the values esteemed by the hierarchical leadership cohort, are not well-equipped to deal with the safeguarding crisis.  Those good at management and administration, those who are ‘safe’, are probably not the best people to place in a situation where there is a lot of trauma and hurt.  The Church has taken a look at the terrible events of the past and has decided to set a variety of formal initiatives including new appointments.  To put it another way, the Church is using the value system articulated by the highly institutionalised ‘safe’ personality type to tackle a problem that would be better handed over to the emotionally literate, pastorally minded, even though, sometimes, less organised personalities.  One thing I have said many times on this blog is the fact that there appear to be no individuals with proper psychotherapeutic qualifications anywhere near the centre of the Church’s safeguarding structures.

When an individual, wounded by a traumatic episode caused by a member of the Church takes their plea for help to a senior person, they may expect certain things.  They expect to be heard; they expect the person they speak to to have emotional intelligence to understand something of what they are describing.  By telling deeply personal material to another person, they will be retraumatised if the human compassion element is absent in the other person.  If all that can be offered is the atrophied emotional response of someone honed within a managerial culture, then the possibility of further damage will be massive.  On present showing, the statistical chances of meeting a non-empathetic manager-type in the person of a bishop, archdeacon or safeguarding officer are high.  From the accounts that reach me, it appears that professional safeguarding officers, who do have psychological and empathetic skills, burn out very fast.   They find the context in which much of the top level of Church decision-making and administration is done, very hard to adjust to.  The reason for this emotionally atrophied culture existing at all is, sadly, to be laid at the door of those who have deliberately promoted the efficient managerial culture rather than one which is prophetic, pastoral, and passionate.  People who foster this latter form of culture do not fit the current models of what a leader should look like in the Church of England. 

In writing this blog post, I have found myself realising that the people in charge of safeguarding and Church leadership in this area will often fail to have the human qualities that are most needed for this type of work.  Safeguarding and Christian shepherding and leadership should require, from those who undertake such work, a high degree of skill, together with those qualities that we (and the public) recognise as Christian.  Words like kindness, empathy, compassion, and human understanding all crowd in and should all form part of the skill set for people who do this work.  By contrast the survivors seem to meet individuals who singularly lack such skills/qualities.  The skills they do have seem to centre around efficiency, administrative competence, and the ability to organise well.  These latter qualities are commendable but, if they are combined with emotional atrophy, they can be highly destructive and dangerous to the whole organisation.  One (among many) of the scandals revealed recently in the Church of England is the one where a range of leaders have allowed the pain of Smyth victims to be buried in the cause of trying to save the wider organisation embarrassment.  Reputation against pastoral need?  The repeated choice by many Church leaders to place institutional reputation above the needs of suffering individuals can only be described as an outworking of emotional atrophy.  Sadly, it still goes on, which suggests that this is an affliction which may take the Church some time to recover from, if it ever does.    

The departure, through ‘retirement’, of the Bishop of Winchester, is proving to be a dramatic, even traumatic, event in the life of the Diocese.  The Anglican Church has always proved well able to mark in a liturgical way a range of events, from the launching of a nuclear submarine to the start of a local hunting season. The recent final service of Bishop Tim Dakin in Winchester Cathedral proved to be a liturgical challenge for those working out how to commemorate a significant moment in the life of a Cathedral and Diocese.  Somehow, they were required to do at least two things.  There was first the need to note the end of a ten-year episcopal ministry, marked, by all accounts, by extreme stress and unhappiness for many.  At the same time the solemnity and dignity of the cathedral setting required that the commemoration was done in a way that did not offend or directly confront anyone with accusations of blame.

What exactly was being marked at evensong on Saturday January 29^th when +Dakin laid his bishop’s crosier on the altar and, with high emotion, spoke the Covenant Prayer of John Wesley?  I am no longer mine but yours …..let me be employed for you or cast aside… The prayer is one about vocation and surrender for the service of others, including the possibility that the one using the prayer could be let go/dismissed when the need for their services comes to an end. This latter realisation must have been particularly hard for +Dakin to bear. His style of theology and administration had always breathed the supremely confident stance of the evangelical believer who claims to know the will of God at all times. This was proving now not to be true and, because of this loss of control, there was a strong sense of dissonance in his voice. The voice cracked and broke as +Dakin read the words and we wondered whether he could reach the end. The whole episode was a kind of drama and will be pondered by many for what it revealed about the Bishop’s inner state of mind. The form of this part of the service was probably brought together by +Dakin, assisted by the Cathedral Canon with responsibility for liturgy.  Alongside this final part of the service, we had listened to the sermon by the preacher, Professor Elisabeth Stuart. She skilfully managed to reveal what the service at its heart was about. It was the end of a season of darkness, now being banished by the light. +Tim was leaving us ….   

Winchester is some 300+ miles from where I live, and so I have not had any access to direct sources of information about what people have been saying about the ministry of +Dakin over the past ten years.  I have to evaluate what has been going on from publicly available material.  This is, in one way, an advantage for me in my role as a commentator.  If I had been closer to the action, it would have been hard not to be drawn in to support the detractors or supporters of the Bishop.  As with the Wymondham situation, I try very hard to see the problems in an institution from both sides.  Here it has, however, proved extremely difficult to find a coherent narrative on which build a convincing defence of the Bishop.  The videos of him provided by Youtube give us a strong sense of his rhetorical/theological style.  As someone who is sensitised to the use of power in church settings, I found the public speaking demonstrations by the Bishop uncomfortable to watch.  There was never, to judge from his style of speaking, any obvious space for any kind of dialogue with another theological position.  Rather, the theological vision of +Dakin, particularly as revealed by his on-line performances, felt like a tank driving relentlessly forward, flattening anything or anyone who did not agree.  When I learned that Dakin’s vision was that mission should dominate everything undertaken by the diocese, including ministerial training, it set off a shudder inside me.  I felt a pang of sympathy for all those individuals in the Diocese brought up to worship in the pastorally aware version of Anglicanism that I and many others still value.  A similar feeling happened inside me when I first learned about a small cluster of parishes in the Anglican Sydney diocese in Australia.  I believe they are called surplice parishes because they retain some traditional marks of Anglicanism in a sea of parishes overseen by Moore College conservatively trained clergy.  All these conservative parishes practise their fundamentalist/complementarian outlook with scant interest for the wider traditions of Anglicanism.  One hopes the small cohort of traditionally run Anglican parishes will survive, in spite of successive Archbishops of Sydney insisting that only Moore College alumni can be appointed to serve the parishes of the diocese.  Was +Dakin on the way to doing something similar in the Winchester diocese?

One single inconvertible fact about +Dakin’s time as Bishop is that there are currently quite a number of wounded survivors of an abrasive episcopal pastoral ministry.  I have no access to actual names or situations, but there seems to be a consensus on this point among all those who comment on the Winchester situation.  Cases of bullying, wherever they occur, have a contagious effect.  One person’s bullying can cause a collapse of morale in a family, a parish or an entire deanery.  The would-be complainants at the Winchester Diocesan Synod last June, knew from their personal acquaintance, some of these traumatised individuals in the diocese.  The individual cases of the traumatised were not only those directly affected by the bully’s actions, but others who knew about them.  If we leave to one side all the other financial and administrative issues which seem to have played a part in the complaints against the Bishop, we still have this issue of damage and hurt.  How does one deal with such things?  In the Winchester situation, the moment for reconciliation between perpetrator and victims seems to have long passed.  The climax of the service, combining the powerful words of Wesley and the obvious distress of the reader were indeed moving to the hearer.   What was really going on for +Dakin?  Were we listening to words that convey his deep regret for actions that have caused so much hurt?  Quite possibly this liturgical moment in front of the high altar of Winchester was indeed an attempt at such contrition.  It may of course have been equally an attempt to use high emotion to win over, even now, members of the Diocese that had been increasingly alienated from his ministry over the years.  Another possibility is that the tears were of incomprehension and personal pain. Were the tears, in short, uttered for him or for the many he has wounded by his harmful ministry? The drama of the farewell may have been a combination and confusion of all three.  Each reader is invited, after watching the event, to make their own assessment of what was really going on at this point in the service.  There are unlikely to be any correct answers.

Looking at the whole episode that unfolded in Winchester last Saturday I am left to wonder whether anything can be lifted from the events of last Saturday and applied to the whole Church. In thinking about the tears shed by the Bishop, I am reminded of the sometimes intense emotional ambiance of reconciliation work undertaken by the Bridge Builders organisation. The Winchester event may have lacked many of the necessary ingredients that would achieve a successful reconciliation for those who have been abused sexually or spiritually. There were, however, some elements which might well play a part in such a liturgical/reconciliation process. Whatever the origin of the cracking voice and the tears that could not be held back, they do form part of a potential, as yet unwritten, future liturgy of remorse and contrition which might bring together those guilty of neglect and abuse and the abused.  The early Christian fathers knew about the part of tears in the expression of remorse for sin.  Somehow +Dakin’s action in front of the altar may, in fact, be his unwitting offering to the Church.  He may be remembered, not for his numerous mission initiatives, but for this simple act of breaking down before the altar of his cathedral.  In this act he may have been pointing us paradoxically to something that the whole Church desperately needs to discover and make its own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IyQj0_PF3g