One of the things we learn very early on in life is that if you are going to have an argument with someone, it is a good idea to agree on what you mean by the words you use. Numerous discussions over the years have proved to be a waste of time when you discover that your starting point or the words you were using were being defined in quite different ways by the person you were talking to.
In recent safeguarding news stories in the press and elsewhere we have also been encountering situations when two sides use words which have quite different meanings from one another. Martyn Percy has been reminding us, in his recent article on the Modern Church site, how words are indeed slippery things. In the novel, 1984, published in 1949, one of the themes is the way that language becomes a tool of oppression by the ruling clique. Hitherto wholesome words, like freedom and truth, have their meanings totally subverted so that no one quite knows what they really mean anymore. All that can be said with certainty is that in a 1984 context, words are defined to fit in with what those in authority have decreed.
One word that has been giving problems in recent years, particularly in a safeguarding context, is the word independent. I spent time trying to define in an earlier blog what this word might actually mean. In a church/safeguarding setting there does seem to be a particular problem in knowing how we should understand the word. The Church of England authorities appear to believe, for example, that the word can legitimately apply to a group of people working at Church House and paid for with central church funds. To believe that any group working with such constraints can be properly independent in a meaningful sense, is to enter a 1984, Alice in Wonderland fantasy. Here words mean anything that the speaker decides they mean. The word independent has now been so overused that perhaps it needs to be avoided as much as possible.
Is there another word that might replace independent, now that it has had its meaning undermined? The last time the word was used appropriately was when the Government set up the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA). Since then, there have been so many times where the word has not been used accurately and credibly that the very mention of the word sets off alarm bells. Independent, in other words, has lost much of its meaning and needs replacing.
In the middle of wondering how the Church could recover the idea of independence in the way that it allows others to scrutinise its work, I encountered the 300-page report written for the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in the States. According to the New York Times on May 22nd the report, compiled by Guidepost Solutions, recorded how nearly 400 individuals employed within the SBC have been convicted of sex crimes since 1998. This scandal broke first of all in 2019 through the diligence of two newspapers, the San Antonio Express and the Houston Chronicle. A major theme in the revelations was the criminal inertia of those at the top of the denomination. The official line taken by the denominational leaders was that their power to intervene was severely restricted by the fact that Southern Baptist congregations were separate entities. They were thus independent of the denominational structures. According to this latest report, this did not stop the denomination holding 700 records of the malfeasance among its clergy members, while doing nothing to warn congregations of the dangers posed by these individuals. Offenders could thus flit from church to church and be free to offend again. Meanwhile, congregations who were tolerant of women’s ministry or gay marriage were disciplined or even disfellowshipped from the SBC.
Even after the newspaper revelations of 2019, it has proved extraordinarily difficult to get the SBC leadership to come clean about its failings, both locally and nationally. Typical responses have been that the revelations are the work of the devil trying to destroy God’s work. One particular prominent campaigner, Beth Moore, who went public with her outspoken comment on the SBC leaders’ failings, saw them as being in the context of ‘the sexism and misogyny that is rampant in segments of the denomination. She also attacked the opposition towards the group responsible for the current report. ‘If you still refuse to believe facts stacked Himalayan high before your eyes and insist the independent group hired to conduct the investigation is part of a (liberal!) human conspiracy or demonic attack, you’re not just deceived. You are part of the deception.’
The SBC has been profoundly affected by the report and its findings. Readers can access the material for themselves and read whatever other follow-ups appear after the publication of this report. The telling point I take from this report is that it was undertaken by a group that was truly independent. As such, the report was not afraid to challenge the institution to the point where it was accused of severely wounding the entire denomination. One piece in Christianity Today calls the report ‘the Southern Baptist Apocalypse’. The other turn of phrase that most struck me in the same article in CT is the expression ‘third party’ referring to the way that the report was written by an outside group. This set me to wondering whether we could challenge the Church of England to say, when they wish to use the word independent, whether they really mean ‘third-party’. By using this latter expression, they would be making it absolutely clear that the individuals making a report or assessing material were working from a position of impartiality and objectivity The expression ‘third-party’ is far less capable of being manipulated than the word independent. I am going to avoid using the word again unless the person I am communicating with is using it as a synonym of ‘third-party’.
In-house reports or internal investigations within the Church can never be independent in the strict meaning of the word. The issue I want to present here to members of the Church of England is not to go on arguing about the meaning of independent. That is probably a futile discussion. They have allowed the word to appear in the context of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB). Quite clearly that entity is not qualified to use the adjective as a self-description. I do however want to see third-party investigations take place in many sectors of the Church where safeguarding failures have been identified. This is a job for the outsider, the third-party investigator. The one obvious institution that still has the power to investigate the Church’s safeguarding failings with third-party objectivity is the Charity Commission. They possess the objectivity and the power to challenge the extraordinary way that, even when the Church produces a self-critical report, no one in its ranks ever receives sanctioning or suspension.
In a recent tweet, Andrew Graystone reveals that six Church of England bishops, currently serving, knew about the Smyth scandal before it became public knowledge. An independent review, evaluating this claim, might conclude that there was no case to answer as the knowledge of these activities took place a long time ago. A third-party review might take, in all probability, a much harder line over such a revelation. It might suggest that any institution that tolerated such laxity over matters of truth is in serious danger of moral collapse through its own lack of integrity. To combat this, there needs to be a public display of brokenness, transparency and contrition. Looking at the problem as objectively as possible, we might want to take the independent line or the third-party line. I know which position I would favour. The harder line is, I believe, the way forward, not just for the flourishing, but even for the survival of the Church of England.
This is very timely. I have just heard from the Lead Bishop for safeguarding that there is to be an “independent” review in regard to my complaints . Previously when I asked for one in regard to my case the Bishop wrote there had been a review, implying all the failures, cover ups and the malicious criminal charges fabricated against me have been reviewed. I challenged the Bishop and wrote to others who are disturbed enough to take up my case and received this reply. So while this may initially look good on the surface it is notable that I have not been given details of the review and how to contact them. So an “independent” review to which I don’t contribute and for which I can’t provide evidence . Well that is one interpretation of independent. No doubt The hierarchy of the Church will agree with it but I’m afraid I do not.
Correction. I misread the email. My apologies but I am under great strain .It says my complaints have been subject to an ” independent” review. This is in reply to my asking which review looked into my criminalization etc because to my knowledge there has not been any review into these matters and this is the reply. So either there has been no “independent” review or if there has been a review no one notified me. However I am currently giving evidence to a general review of my Diocese and am waiting to see if my complaints are included . I am re traumatised as a result so apologies once again for my mistake.
Try to look after yourself, Mary. We’re all rooting for you, and praying for you. Don’t let it get you down, if possible. This is worth pursuing for the sake of future potential victims. But just let it go if you must. It’s a worthy cause, but you’re worth looking after, too.
Prayers and solidarity Mary and being talked about from the pulpit is outrageous. X
Thank you. Just waiting to see if it is included in the “independent” review taking place currently.
The reference to Lewis Carroll is very apt, as per this famous exchange:
‘”When I use a word”, Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is”, said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is”, said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master — that’s all.”‘
What the authorities want, regardless of the rights and wrongs of any safeguarding matter, is to remain in control: ‘to be master’.
As I (and others) have suggested on this site before, there can be no confidence in the processes adopted unless and until reviews are undertaken by people who have nothing whatsoever to do with the Church.
Also, ‘follow the money’: the party who pays for the process will invariably dictate the terms of reference, procedure and outcome. It is for this reason that I think there needs to be a national safeguarding body, to which all those institutions that have safeguarding responsibilities would contribute. In this way, the Church’s contribution to the income of that body would be so mixed and diffused that it would be impossible for it to exercise any form of suasion over the reviewers, who might well be atheists or people of other faiths. The analogy is with the financing of the Information Commissioner, who does receive Treasury subventions, but who also realises income via the imposition of fines.
In addition, rather than have EI involved (since it is a captive insurer susceptible to suasion), I think that all institutions with safeguarding responsibilities ought to carry special safeguarding insurance (if you like, a species of third party public liability or professional indemnity cover) with one or more of the industrial insurers, so that any assessment undertaken by a loss adjuster is genuinely impartial. Again, the loss adjuster is rather more likely to be a non-believer or person of another faith than someone working at EI.
I should like to thank Stephen Parsons for drawing attention to the problems of ‘Independent Investigation’. Kenneth, (see the ‘Kenneth Saga’ items on this blog), was offered an independent investigation in March 2021 after a whole year of daily struggles with an intransigent Core Group who refused to investigate his case or look at evidence provided by Kenneth. Hurrah! We thought, ‘Justice at last’ but our optimism was short-lived. In the event the so-called Independent Investigator had strict restraints imposed on him by the Core Group who decreed what could and could not be investigated and which elements of his report must be redacted before Kenneth saw it. Needless to say the Heads of Terms were not followed.
Recently, I found by chance, an item written by Martin Sewell on the Archbishop Cranmer blog August 2nd 2019 about Matt Ineson’s protests about a review into his case. Although the two cases are very different, their reviews have been approached in the same way. Matt Ineson issued a detailed press statement in which he declared that he would not co-operate with what he regarded as ‘a sham review, with its terms of reference deliberately skewed to sanitise the outcome’. Matt Ineson listed nine points outlining his objections to his proposed review. Two years later all except one of these (point nine) applied to Kenneth. Nothing has changed.
There were three questions at the end of the blog.
1) Who in the Church of England has the power to change these decisions?
2) Who will accept responsibility for not changing them if we want to challenge these matters in detail at the next meeting of the General Synod?
3) How do we change the decision-maker if access to justice is denied?
I have alerted Martin to the similarity of the two cases and I am sure we should all like the three questions answered but two years later we are still waiting……… as we are to your comments, Froghole. How much longer will it be?
Mary, I echo English Athenaa in saying we are praying for you.
I thank you for your good wishes, encouragement and prayer. At today’s communion service, my Rector stated in front of the congregation that he has read my blog and that I ” Keep on” lying. I assure you that I have never lied and have offered my documentary evidence to reviewers . It includes emails from national safeguarding stating that a previous agreement should be rewritten, police tapes which detail fabricated charges, letters written by my Rector saying he will not discuss safeguarding matters , that I should not ask for pastoral care etc etc. I too like anonymous have asked similar questions. I asked the Lead Bishop what boundaries have to be crossed before action about these serious matters is taken. As far as I can tell, there is no one in the church hierarchy who has said it stops with them.If I have missed any such announcement, please let me know. If someone is willing and has the authority to say the buck stops with them, I would be very pleased to hear it.
That kind of comment, during a service and in front of others, is totally inappropriate. It is in itself a breach of professional standards, and the rector ought at the very least be officially rebuked.
That’s utterly disgusting. What is he thinking? He should be thinking of Jesus’ sacrifice.
Presumably Guidepost Solutions were paid by the Southern Baptists to carry out this investigation. I wonder how independence was maintained, and who drew up the terms of reference? It would be interesting to know.
There’s nothing unclear or ambiguous about the word “independent”. We all know what it means. It’s simply that these people who corrupt its use are liars.
Such pernicious dishonesty has become embedded in organised religion and from our point of view, as christians, our responsibility is to point it out as effectively as we can. I applaud those courageous few here who have tried to take their churches and ministers on.
I’m just returning from having attended a Forum for Survivors organised by the IICSA. I believe that organisation has been materially independent, and thus effective. It struck me attending this recent meeting, just how much energy there was in the room, and how much engagement for justice is going on. I believe if we keep up our efforts, even if we lose individual battles, collectively the war is beginning to be won. Personally, I wasn’t sure whether I’d be able to make the meeting, or stay, for fear of further triggering, and there was some, but I did stay. And I’m better for it. Partly this was from seeing the courage and commitment of others. Many professional staff were there and on the whole were very good with us. They’re learning too. Now they have to find other work as the Inquiry is drawing to a close. I suspect there will be plenty of work for them.
I’m glad to hear that was a good experience, Steve. And thanks for having the courage to tell your story to IICSA, and stick with it. It helps us all.
Thanks Janet
Amazing courage. Well done. Prayers and solidarity xx
Thanks #churchtoo
Though independence or third party involvement are desirable in reality I have witnessed the church intimidate and undermine such people to an extent where they can no longer fulfil their role and give up.
In order to have benefit from such people the church first needs to be willing to recognise this problem and agree that naming and shaming dioceses that are under performing is both constructive, because it creates purpose and competition and in line with other institutions that care for people. PCR2 and Lesson Learned Reviews are not allowed to do this so the postcode lottery that everyone knows exists just dwindles into blandness and cover up.
Provide feedback forms, create leagues which dioceses want to be at the top of and name and shame, or praise, when appropriate. Then it is with nervousness not arrogance that the church meets with third parties.
Mary so sorry you are still facing such nonsense, every time it happens make a note and add £20 to what you will be expecting from the redress scheme. As Del boy would say ‘This time next year Mary ‘we’ll be millionaires’! I got an update letter today with survivor opportunities on it hope you got yours or will do in the next couple of days.
Trish, who was your update letter from and what survivor opportunities were there?
If Mary, Steve, and the rest of us don’t get the letter we need to know who to complain to.
Janet you can get a newsletter for survivors which includes survivor opportunities from national safeguarding. I am afraid I am too shaky to remember who I wrote to but I found out from this blog, Trish perhaps. Can someone inform Janet please as I am in no stAte to start looking things up.
Hi Janet, I am at work and not clever enough on my mobile to give you the address to write to but will do so this evening as opportunities expire quickly. Glad you got yours Mary. Take care
Thanks Trish. I don’t want to take up any opportunities to be involved with the C of E, as I feel I’ve wasted more than enough energy on them already and they aren’t going to change. The corruption runs too deep.
However, I’d like to know why a newsletter for C of E survivors isn’t automatically being sent to all survivors they’ve been in touch with?
Hi Janet, completely understand your thoughts on no longer bothering with the C of E but I still think your voice provides a valuable and knowledgable perspective and every person that makes the point that all survivors should be treated equally, without favour, does really make a difference to all those that are very marginalized. I think the reason they don’t automatically send the newsletter is because you have to specifically ask for it, so they aren’t ‘cold calling’ you which is fine if you know it exists in the first place!
I think you would find it interesting even if you decided not to engage. In the long term write to:
ioannis DOT athanasiou At churchofenglandDOT org
Replacing the capitals with the symbols. As some opportunites run out soon and next week is all bank holidays and no one will be around I will send a copy to Stephen so he can send it to anyone that wants it, if he doesn’t mind.
I am surprised you are not ‘in the loop’ Janet because (and I may be wrong) but I thought a few years ago you said you had filled in the SCIE survivors survey and Sheila Fish who organised it (really badly) said at IICSA that the SRG had been formed from those respondents.
The church and their ‘not so independent’ mates do love to cherry pick!
I sent loads of stuff to SCIE. But I never got this either.
That’s kind of you, Trish, but in what way does it make a difference?
I’ve concluded, after more than 30 years of trying to bring abuse issues to the attention of Church leaders, that they have no intention of making any meaningful changes. In my view, the ‘survivor engagement’ stuff is just a ploy to keep distracted, busy, and (most of all) quiet.
Sorry to hear that Athena, I am not part of the SRG and hope that going forward no group or person will get preferential treatment in survivor engagement.
I do agree with a lot of what you say Janet but I think you need to read the news updates before dismissing it entirely. There are opportunities to consult on the new CDM, join interview panels etc.
Writing to say you want to be on the mailing list is a voice for greater inclusion and even if you are jaded and sceptical other survivors have not yet reached that point and simply want a voice within the institution that abused them.
Whatever my personal views I want everyone to have that opportunity if they want it. However totally understand that you have given up and respect that.
Thank you Trish. I got the update and pointed out that despite having communication with national safeguarding over several years, they kept me in the dark as to its existence. No surprises there! Yes, the one thing the church does not want is true independence it reviews etc. I am hoping the current one in regard to my Diocese will be independent and actually include my complaints and evidence. Will let you know if that happens. Meanwhile my Rector is allowed to tell a congregation that my safeguarding complaints are lies. I do hope you and the many other complainants receive redress. If I ever receive any I am donating it to the charity which helped me and which provides me with mobility. They had to use badly needed public donations in an effort to keep us safe at church, and it would be good to be able to reimburse them.
Here is more information from the US:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/faqs-sexual-abuse-southern-baptist/
See also the Trending link at the foot of the page just posted headed “How Should Baptists and Christians Respond to the SBC Task Force’s Report on Sexual Abuse?”
Thanks Chiff. The parallels with the Church of England are striking
Except that they evidently faced up to the scandal, eventually, in the way that the CofE has not.
And they got a truly independent reviewer, which is something the C of E steadfastly avoids.
They did.
Many years ago I was being counselled by a supportive pastor who told me this: relationships die when one person stops believing the other will change. In a sense you could say this is a truism, but on the other hand we do often carry perhaps ultimately unrealistic hope that the other will change.
We have deeply embedded relationships in our minds with organisations too, such as the C of E, or SBC and these “objects” as some term them, have profound significance for us. It might be a mental commitment to the whole thing, or a smaller part, but nevertheless the marriage is deeply set. And when the relationship begins to be sorely tested and then to break down, the effect can be similar to a bereavement. Arguably a divorce is worse in the sense that the other person is still carrying on, and the hopes and dreams we had with them are continuously thrust in our faces as never quite over, but we are nonetheless spurned. A living death?
It can take a long time, some distance, and a great deal of mental work to rebuild our lives without the Other. I don’t underestimate how painful this can be.
The alternative is to mould ourselves into whatever is acceptable to them, however much we compromise our own values and identity. Some hope that by doing so, by acquiescing to the pretending, the dishonesty, the cover-ups, that somehow everything will be ok. Maybe one day they will listen to me if I keep smiling? Maybe one day they will change.
Only of course, no matter how many hoops you jump through to try and make yourself “good enough”, you never are. Been there. It’s like what they say about banging your head on a brick wall, it’s great when you stop! But it still hurts. “Why didn’t they love me?”
Yes!
Thank you, Steve. Those insights are helpful. I’ve done with pretending and trying to fit in, and I’m content with that.
That’s something!
Anyone seen the papers today?
Welby says UK should forgive Prince Andrew
Me: ABC: I like to support habitual sexual predators rather than their victims especially if they are rich and powerful. It’s all just boys being boys isn’t it? Good luck getting any justice if you are a victim of a C of E cleric. La la la la, I can’t hear you.
Massive #safeguardingfailure. What an absolute tool.
That really is the last nail in the coffin of my faith that the c of e institution has ANY integrity whatsoever
ABC’s theology of forgiveness needs some work. I sometimes feel his responses are scripted.
I’m sure he wouldn’t have signed up to being a gaffe-prone mouthpiece for the powers-that-be. In his position I’d take an “early retirement” and draw to a close what must surely be a nightmare for him. I may be wrong obviously.
I think you’re right. It’s not working out for any of us is it.
Justin really ought to know better by now – it was a daft statement to make. However, reading what he actually said, it wasn’t quite ‘UK should forgive Andrew’. He said, ‘When it comes to Prince Andrew I think we all have to step back a bit. It’s a good thing he’s trying to make amends.’
It isn’t very obvious, to me at least, that Andrew is making amends, and I don’t see why we should cut him some slack, but it isn’t quite ‘We should forgive him.’
And what’s more is that apparently the rest of us, that is society at large, is not forgiving enough. Cannot Archbishop Welby forgive us this failure instead of pointing the finger? I am sorry this is the last nail in the coffin for you, although I can understand why you say this. For myself, I have asked the “independent” reviewer of my Diocese to clearly answer me either yes or no to a simple question . I have asked several times if he requires me to send evidence of systemic safeguarding failures and dangerous practices in order for my contribution to be included in his review. I have told him I have masses of evidence and asked him to tell me which parts he wants me to submit if he requires proof that it is dangerous to come forward and have your voice heard in the Diocese. I have pointed out I have asked several times and have received no clear answer. I have explained I am affected by two neurological disorders and require a clear answer. The “independent” reviewer does not wish, so far to say yes or no. I note that his company has been chosen to review complaints not resolved by the Diocesan complaints procedure. I hope this is not playing a part in his reluctance to give me a clear answer and explain what evidence he needs, if any, in order that that he addresses, in his review, the dangerous practices the Diocese uses to frighten complainants into giving up their complaints.
I am pleased to say the reviewer has finally been in touch to say he will consider what evidence he needs to substantiate my contribution and that in the meantime I can post evidence. It has been hard and feels like a battle to get this far.
So glad you have some progress at last.
Oh, that sounds like possible good news!
Yes, I am pleased. I was worried that a proposed deadline would pass without the reviewer looking at the evidence and my contribution being omitted. However I would be more confident of justice if the reviewer had been less reluctant to engage with me about accepting evidence. Still it is progress, and hopefully my evidence won’t be buried this time. At least the reviewer says he will now consider what evidence he needs to see.