One of the interesting features of a recently published Lessons Learned Review about events at the parish of Tylers Green, in the Diocese of Oxford, is the frequent use of the expression ‘spiritual abuse’. The authors of this review, Elaine and Patrick Hopkinson, use this term often in describing the malfeasance of the Reverend Michael Hall at St Margaret’s Church between 1981 and 2000. During that period this expression was not in common use as a shorthand for a range of harmful behaviours. perpetrated by some church leaders against members of their congregations. We could speculate as to why this term spiritual abuse has taken such a long time to emerge as a way of describing poor behaviour by the clergy. One reason is that no one then wanted to admit that a man of the cloth (women were not incumbents until the last years of the century) would ever act malevolently. It was also not an expression available to clerical victims to help them describe their pain. Those in oversight roles in the Oxford diocese seemed, for a variety of reasons, to be unable to check the tragic twenty-year period of harsh and harmful behaviour on the part of Mr Hall. Another new concept used by the Review authors, one that finds its origin in domestic dysfunction, is the term coercion and control. These words have gained a currency only at the beginning of the present century to describe non—violent controlling behaviour used against another. The law of the land now recognises such behaviour as potentially criminal, especially in the context of abusive domestic relationships where the victim is typically female. The language of coercive control allows the law to identify a situation where men (typically) may control and humiliate others without the use of physical force. It has taken society a long time to understand fully the nature of such things as threatening and coercive behaviour against a weaker party in a relationship.
Mr Hall’s offences and the descriptions of them that are made in this Review, attracted my attention for two key reasons. First, the twenty-year period of Mr Hall’s time as an incumbent of the Church of England dovetail very closely to my own time as a Vicar in in two English dioceses. In short, the parochial environment, especially the account of the interactions with figures in authority in the Church, are similar to what I knew at that time in other dioceses. Bishops and Archdeacons in those days were fairly remote figures and the freehold system could effectively screen the hierarchy from involvement in ordinary parishes. A short summary of the pattern of the bonding between the parishes and the centre would be to say that it was, at best, weak. It would also have been possible for a Vicar to remain at arm’s length for long periods of time from any contact with fellow clergy, if he chose it that way. I have thus some feel for the situation described in the Review about the way that bishops, archdeacons and other church overseeing authorities could be, during the twenty years of Hall’s incumbency, kept firmly out of the way. The ill-tempered and forceful actions of a determined freehold incumbent, bent on exploiting his legal status, would be enough to terrify any bishop. While the system of freehold worked fairly well for incumbents, it never worked well for bishops when faced with a Vicar known to be harming members of his flock. Whatever we may think now of the operation of CDMs or its current proposed replacement, the situation in the 80s and 90s gave far too little power to the those in episcopal authority to check clerical malfeasance.
The second reason that the Tylers Green Review has attracted my attention picks up my interests on a more personal level. Having written a book on Christian healing in the 80s, I was, in the 90s, invited to join a committee in London which had some supervisory powers for accrediting healing organisations. To obtain this accreditation, these organisations had to be open to being visited and to be free from scandal and ethical lapses. I was present when some truly dreadful abuses by individual healing organisations were discussed. The saga of the Nine O’Clock Service in Sheffield was not in fact within our organisational remit, but I found that the committee work had sensitised me to have some insight as to what was going on at the church at Sheffield. The link between sexual misbehaviour and religious leadership was at that time something quite hard for many to admit or understand. From 1995 onwards I was beginning to explore why and how certain forms of spiritual practice could be a prelude to truly dreadful and harmful behaviour on the part of Christian leaders.
I think it was in 1997 that my reading on abusive power and forms of exploitation within the Church was consolidated into a book proposal for Lion Publishers. The commissioning editor did not find it easy to sell my text to his superiors when I eventually presented the manuscript at the end of 1999. Nevertheless, the work, Ungodly Fear, was well received as an attempt to explore the way that power, spiritual and authoritarian, could be abused in church settings. People knew that church abuse was taking place but there was then little help in understanding the psychological and theological context of what was going on. In much of my book I was writing about spiritual abuse, but this expression had not then been formulated so it was not available to me to use.
After the book appeared in 2000, I began to read more widely to see in the psychological literature whether there were writings about power abuse, personal and institutional, that could be applied to the Church. To summarise, in my reading on the topic over several years, I stumbled on the notion of narcissism. There I saw clearly that the so-called narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) was something that well described the self-inflation evident in many Christian and cultic leaders involved in abuse. I pursued this idea at my first presentation to the International Cultic Studies Association at their conference at Trieste in 2011. Being then a new boy in this organisation, I was surprised to discover that it was considered a novel idea. Since then, the notion has become commonplace and reading the Tylers Green Review, it can be offered as revealing a further interpretation of the dysfunction apparent in the extraordinarily harmful behaviour of Michael Hall.
I am well aware of the warnings in the psychoanalytic literature against applying the diagnosis of NPD to someone who is not accessible to detailed examination. My use of the narcissism label is not in any way offered as a professional diagnosis for Michael Hall. Nevertheless, using the idea of narcissism we are helped to have a coherent pattern of understanding allowing us to see many of the salient aspects of Hall’s personality described in the Review as a coherent whole. The phenomena of extreme anger, litigious and threatening behaviour and apparent indifference to the pain and suffering of others, are all part of the typical NPD profile. The word narcissism is also now frequently used to describe an insatiable appetite for power and importance. I would maintain that whether or not we claim the diagnosis of a full personality disorder for Hall, the categories attached to the ideas of narcissism are appropriately applied as a description of his behaviour.
So far, we have seen how the reviewers of 2023 have had the categories of coercive control and spiritual abuse at their disposal and have made good use of them. Thankfully the use of term spiritual abuse has passed into general use in spite of the defensive paper put out by the Evangelical Alliance in 2018, saying that it was an unnecessary expression. No doubt they may have felt that ‘conversion-therapy’ and hellfire preaching from some of their members could be regarded as spiritually abusive. Some of us do indeed believe that certain strands of preaching are designed to foment terror in their hearers. When fear, reinforced by aggressive preaching dominates an institution for twenty years, as at Tylers Green, is it any wonder that the observer might describe this as spiritual abuse?
The reviewers of 2023 have been allowed to think in the categories of the current age when looking at the past behaviour of Michael Hall in the events that took place 20 to 40 years ago. The expression, spiritual abuse and the ideas around coercion and control, have greatly assisted their task. To these two expressions, I have added a third, narcissism and the various ideas that are associated with the word. The cultic world has already widely adopted into its discourse concepts like ‘toxic narcissism’ to describe the damaging behaviour of individuals like Donald Trump and Michael Hall who seem incapable of acting in a truly altruistic way. Perhaps we should face up to the terrifying thought that there are, among our existing leaders, a number who are afflicted in this way. For reasons deep in their psychological make-up, some Christian leaders are incapable of acting in a way that builds up another. Unless such leaders are named and inhibited, they will have the power to create the same appalling damage as was created in a parish in the Oxford diocese 20 -40 years ago. One thing has changed in the intervening time, and we should use it to good effect. This is our ability to articulate and describe better what may be going on inside the minds of individuals who lead us. The battle to prevent another Michael Hall appearing is a serious struggle and will require enormous resources of psychological insight as well as wisdom of leadership and management. Even a small number of destructive leaders can wreak terrifying damage on an institution like the Church. The task of neutralising the impact of toxic leaders as well as the individuals who use their power to abuse in other ways is urgent and should demand much of our energy and resources.
Let Us Prey: The Plague of Narcissist Pastors and What We Can Do About It Paperback – 15 Jun. 2017
by R. Glenn Ball (Author), Steven J. Sandage (Foreword), Darrell Puls (Contributor)
There is alot more work looking at narcissism in church leaders being done in the US. The above book for example. I got it on Kindle its alot cheaper. Darryl Puls has put video’s on u tube about his work and if you type it in u tube or google alot more information is available. Unfortunately the church does not assess personality disfunction as part of the discernment process. Why not? What would be their unwillingness?
Surely a psychiatric assessment or similar assessment could be part of the process as ministers are dealing with such vunerable people. 35 years ago the then DDO in my diocese sent me for an assessment with a Psychiatrist as they wrote to my GP for a report as part of my application. I had once been to talk to him about my anxiety. So they are not unwilling.
In the 1990s, I ministered in a parish in the same deanery as Tylers Green. It was known to be a complete disaster area, but there was no straightforward way in which the problems could be addressed, given the limited resources available at the time and the personality and litigious propensities of the incumbent. I vividly recall one deanery synod meeting at which the then area dean read out a written statement about the situation, which included the withholding of parish share, among other matters which affected the wider church. The statement had been prepared with the help of the diocesan registry and was prefaced by a warning to synod members that the area dean would not be taking questions or otherwise commenting on what he was about to read because of the very real fear of legal action. I am fairly certain that Michael Hall did initiate legal proceedings against his area bishop (now dead) and it was rumoured that he had done the same to the then diocesan, toward whom he bore a virulent hostility.
Narcissists get promoted by the Church of England, and other organisations, although that doesn’t appear to be the case here. Nevertheless a severely narcissistic personality can still damage a lot of people in the parish.
Generally the toxicity of their symptoms is self limiting. Often the person has no friends at all and only one or two feeders, that is a spouse or child who panders to everything they want, giving up on themselves almost completely.
The more “successful” NPDs bring charm or charisma into the mix and hoodwink many many folk. They can reach very high places, as Stephen refers above. Again they are characterised by an inner but much larger coterie of feeders. To an external observer, these latter may be dismissed as sycophants, but in fact are often highly vulnerable and miserable under the manipulation and mistreatment they endure from the boss. To the extent we can, we need to intervene on their behalf, although this can be very difficult. They are part of a grand delusion too. This is what makes the leader so powerful. He (or she, but it’s usually he) offers them magic; a phantasy of a gilded future, often having no connection with any reality. Why wouldn’t they choose this dream?
The Church deceives itself in promoting these types, because they get bums on seats. It turns a blind eye to the costs, which can be very high indeed. Witness the mass delusion of Soul Survivor and the tsunami of broken dreams once the truth begins to dawn.
Thank you for this reflection, Stephen. In one of my parishes I had the misfortune to follow an incumbent who had NPD (the diagnosis of a skilled psychotherapist). It was not easy!
Incidentally, I used the term ‘spiritual abuse’ in my 1998 master’s thesis on charismatic healing ministries and the sexual abuse survivor. I don’t think I got it from any of the material used in my research – unless you mentioned it when we met at St Deiniol’s earlier in 1998? I remember having several conversations when you were working on ‘Ungodly Fear’ and I was finishing my thesis.
This is a fantastic article, very insightful and accurate. Peter Brown from Penn and Tyler’s blog kept lots of records about him – there is more to this than is reported in the review. Essentially he ran a cult.
Hi Betty. Can you give us a link to that blog?
Hi Janet, the blog is here:
https://pennandtylersgreen.com/
Thanks. It’s obviously an extreme case, but In part Michael Hall reminds me of my training incumbent.
I think it’s to the credit of Oxford Diocese that they agreed to an independent review – too often these cases are just brushed under the carpet.
There must still be hurt and damaged people in Tyler’s Green; it can’t have been easy to follow Green as vicar.
It can take 20 years or so for trauma to unravel/be disclosed. Some traumas are never revealed.
Children were born into this mess. Sadly one died.
Yet another instance of someone being ordained who shouldn’t have been permitted to get within a country mile of holy orders, and who was a malignant disgrace to his calling.
What I find puzzling are the claims by the then leadership of the Church that their hands were tied, or that they lacked sufficient power. The patron, Lord Howe (who is a government minister of long standing), appeared to have had the measure of the man, by declining to give him the freehold. Since he did not appear to have a freehold, why was he not evicted from his position?
I appreciate that he had the backing of his pliant churchwardens and PCC, but his behaviour would have got him sacked for gross misconduct in almost any other line of work, and would have – rightly – terminated his career. Why is it that so many bishops are so indulgent of wretchedly poor clergy? I have come across a number who should not have been ordained over the years, and the damage they do – the permanent scarring – is often incalculable, even when the clergy in question do not even approach Hall in awfulness. Some clergy are wonderful, many are mediocre (as with all lines of work), but some are actively harmful and traduce their callings.
I have one objection to this cogent and useful review, which is that the authors kept referring to ‘Reverend Hall’. Calling him ‘Hall’ would have done quite well enough. For a man who was such a contemptible and odious disgrace to his profession, dignifying him with the word ‘Reverend’ seems misplaced.
If you follow the link Alwyn posted above, you will see the answer to one of your questions. Briefly, Lord Howe wanted the freehold denied to Hall, and to have him retired on health grounds. Hall sued, and was granted freehold. With freehold, it was almost impossible to move him or sack him.
The review, which is linked to at https://www.oxford.anglican.org/learning-lessons-review-revd-michael-hall.php makes it clear at para 6.4 that the patron, Lord Howe became unwilling by 1987 to present Hall formally to the living, after he had been priest-in-charge since 1981. The then Bishop of Buckingham assured Hall in March 1988 that “he would dissuade the patron from presenting another
candidate as incumbent, and that once the patron’s right to present a
candidate had lapsed after six months, Reverend Hall would remain as priest
in charge.” There had already been complaints about Hall, including in 1982/3 his refusing communion without legal grounds.
It would have been perfectly possible for the Bishop of Oxford to have proceeded against Hall on the grounds of a breach of Canon B16 in 1983; and possible, and indeed easier, to support the patron’s refusal in 1988. (I strongly suspect the latter reflects the animosity that existed between bishops and private patrons in the 1980s, which I myself encountered personally at that time.) If so, as a mere priest-in-charge, Hall would not have acquired the freehold. In fact, the time elapsed for the patron to exercise the right of presentation (partly as a result of Hall’s legal action against the patron, surely another red flag), and the bishop subsequently instituted Hall to the freehold in 1990.
In summary then, the bishops had ample opportunity to remove Hall between 1981-1990 when he was priest-in-charge but inexplicably instituted him to the freehold: hereby not only ignoring numerous and obvious warning signs but making it much harder for them to proceed against against a man who was by that time patently unfit for the position.
Many thanks to you and Ms Fife for that. I note that there are still questions for Lord Harries to answer, and that the remarks he has made to date appear to be somewhat unsatisfactory.
Yes, I recall that the formation of boards of patronage and the suspension of livings during the 1980s were part of a concerted effort to reduce or eliminate private patronage and to enhance the control of the episcopate over their own dioceses. Much of that animosity seems to have faded, presumably because the bishops were so successful in their assault on patronage, and perhaps because many private patrons had come to consider the exercise of their patronage a tedious and burdensome chore. The Penn-Curzon family have (or had) patronage of eight livings, and what is perhaps surprising is that Lord Howe cared enough to intervene as he did, even if he eventually capitulated in the face of Hall’s threats.
Indeed, one reading of the affair is that bishops would rather have appointed their own choice, even though they knew him already to be quite unfit for ministry, than allow a private patron any say in the matter.
But the statement by Lord Harries at the link I quote is quite unsatisfactory. Let me repeat it:
“In all this period there were three factors which made it impossible to lance the boil of this terrible situation.
“First, there were to my knowledge no official complaints. People might whisper and speak anonymously, but they were too intimidated to go public.
“Secondly, and linked with that, Hall made it clear he would institute proceedings against anyone he thought slandered or libelled him. Together with this was the simmering violence that people sometimes sensed in his personality, which must have been frightening.
“Thirdly, he always managed to have a majority of the PCC on his side, no doubt recruiting more supporters as and when previous ones were alienated.”
Of course it was not impossible (indeed there were points at which it would have been quite possible) although it would no doubt have been hard. But surely that’s what bishops are for.
The point about “official complaints” is nonsense. There were numerous complaints, and there never was any sort of “official” way to make such a complaint. The bishops received complaints, as the review makes clear, and chose not to pursue them. It was never necessary to complain in public: people quite properly complained in confidence, trusting that the bishops would take action. It was known that Hall was a litigious, unstable, violent bully, and that merited an investigation and action: indeed, the bishops had ample evidence of those facts. He was no doubt very threatening, but again to whom else but the bishop (and his lawyers) would one look to to stand up to such threats.
Finally, what on earth does the PCC have to do with it? The bishop is not bound by any PCC.
I am deeply disappointed that Lord Harries could not bring himself to utter the word “sorry”, and that Bp Wilson uses the mealy-mouthed construction “I am truly sorry for what happened here in Tyler’s Green.” I would rather he could have said that he was sorry for what happened in the episcopal palaces and offices.