Amid all the reviews and reports that are appearing on the topic of Church of England safeguarding, there is one that currently stands out for our attention. It is written by a highly qualified clinical and forensic psychologist, David Glasgow. He was asked to describe the psychological impact on some of the twelve survivors who were directly affected by the sudden termination of the work of the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) by the Archbishops’ Council. The report that has appeared in the past seven days is not one to argue the rights and wrongs of this closure. The concern of the author, and this is what gives the document considerable authority and power, is to provide a professional and expert assessment on the degree of damage caused to individuals through of the closure of the ISB. His purpose is not to take a position on the rights and wrongs of this closure or place blame anywhere. He simply wants to use his professional experience to assess and describe the damage and trauma endured by a number of the twelve individuals who had looked to the ISB for help. They had all endured the same sudden withdrawal of support through the dissolution of the ISB. Not all of the twelve chose to engage in the process set up by Glasgow.
Glasgow’s report is not lengthy and thus it lends itself to a summary suitable for Surviving Church. He uses the expression ‘significant harm’ in describing the impact of the event at the heart of the report – the sudden closing of the ISB with virtually no notice. I understand that the expression, when used in a professional/legal context, is normally the prelude to immediate and often radical intervention by concerned social agencies. This may include such a drastic action as removing a vulnerable child from their home and placing them in care. ‘Significant harm’ in the context of the ISB closure suggests a recognition by a well-qualified professional trauma expert that the closure of the ISB was a seriously damaging event to the well-being to several individuals caught up in the process. The results of this kind of damage are clearly familiar to Glasgow as he describes the phenomena of ‘trauma related symptomology’ he observed in the survivors he interviewed . These are described and include ‘intrusive experiences, dissociation, defensive avoidance, dysregulation of affect, self derogation and self harm. …’ He further comments, ‘most [symptoms] I would characterise as moderate to severe’. In these few words, especially the use of the words ‘significant harm’ and ‘severe’, we are taken into a dimension of pain and suffering that few can imagine, let alone have experienced. The tone of the report hints that Glasgow himself was moved by the plight of those he interviewed. The pain endured by those in the ‘severe’ category was, he noted, made worse by the trust that some of the survivors still had in the Church authorities to resolve the problem. Some simply could not believe that the Church they had always looked up to could so utterly fail them. The ISB had built up a level of trust with this group and the abolishing of the ISB was a cause of real anger and bewilderment.
As a professional involved with other situations of individual and corporate trauma, Glasgow asks the Church some challenging questions. From the norms of his professional practice, he would have assumed that the decision of the Archbishops’ Council to terminate the contracts of the remaining members of the ISB would be a decision that would only have been made after an expert risk-assessment. The way the termination in fact took place showed no sign that an ‘appropriately qualified expert’ had been anywhere in the decision. No expert or properly qualified assessor, Glasgow notes, ‘would fail to highlight the very significant and entirely foreseeable risk of significant harm to victims.’ Another less professional way of expressing what Glasgow is trying to say at this point is simply this. How can the Church be so crassly incompetent and careless for the wellbeing and safety of its members? Did they really take a decision of this order of magnitude without taking advice about the likely consequences? We are, perhaps, in this episode seeing the Church at the highest-level exercising power when it is quite clearly out of its depth.
Glasgow’s report concludes with a discussion on the task of rebuilding trust between survivors and victims and the Church authorities. He has no shortcuts to offer but recognises that such a restoration of trust will be a ‘challenge’ after all that has happened. While such reconciliation work is not within the remit of his task or his expertise, he helpfully points to literature and the potential contribution of other academic researchers who understand the level of complexities and the degree of expertise needed for such an undertaking.
In drawing attention to this highly professional piece of work and commentary to the Church of England’s somewhat failing attempts to put things right in the safeguarding sphere, I have to mention two other expected documents that have (Jan 14th) not yet appeared. The first one is Professor Jay’s report. This was originally promised for the end of last year. While the reasons for delay may be totally valid, a delay of several weeks would seem to merit some kind of formal announcement. The second document that was expected by now is a formal response or reaction from the bishops about the Wilkinson report. It would seem to be important to have a reasonable length of time for General Synod members to study such a response before the gathering of GS in February. Currently I am detecting an increasing dissatisfaction among some members of Synod as they come to realise that important decisions affecting the Church are being made without an adequate level of skill and expertise. Both Wilkinson and Glasgow have drawn attention to the acute level of pain inflicted on members of the Church which can be ascribed, not only to the wickedness of malefactors, but also to the incompetent and unfeeling treatment of survivors by senior members of the Church. Glasgow wonders whether it is now too late to bind up the broken levels of trust between survivors and those who have power in the Church. His own prognosis is gloomy in the extreme. He states when speaking about the task of rebuilding of trust ‘I can think of no obvious remedial steps that might usefully be taken on this issue’. Those of us who want to feel optimistic that the future may improve things in the world of safeguarding, perhaps have a duty to make our voices heard.
‘made worse by the trust that some of the survivors still had in the Church authorities to resolve the problem.’
We still seem to have difficulty comprehending the true extent of continuing Church misconduct : either breathtaking incompetence or deliberate disregard for human suffering. Or both. Glasgow shows us that this makes our suffering worse, this hope that we can still trust them.
Change for the better will not be coming from inside the Church.
There is, unfortunately, a third possibility — that the harm caused to the survivors is deliberate. That is, that the Church authorities consciously desired the effects that their actions had (which would be the normal presumption). Quite why they would do this would be a matter for speculation, and of course different individuals may have had different motivations. One possible reason would be to discourage other victims from coming forward, or to encourage current victims to drop their complaints. Another would be a conscious delight in seeing human suffering: while this latter might be considered improbable, as a famous, if fictional, detective said, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”.
The deliberate infliction of pain on others for personal pleasure, was something I was introduced to at school by the Anglican priest teacher there. He was part of a sadistic punishment system, noted elsewhere by many others including Nicky Campbell In Edinburgh.
John Smyth’s ministrations were part of a similar system, and his victims and students are now in high office across the Church.
So it is not inconceivable that the sackings were done for sadistic satisfaction. My own sense was they had no regard whatsoever for the Survivors, and their actions were an angry punishment meted out to enjoy their power. I also wonder whether it was done in panic over the increasing sense of loss of control over the ISB, who were demonstrating humanity, effectiveness and looking like calling the Powers to account. Sacking them was stamping out this alarming development.
I’m so sorry you had that experience of painful abuse, Steve. It takes lifetime to heal from such experiences.
Thank you Janet. It took decades to start to understand the impact psychologically of what went on at school, and other places. It colours your life.
But it does enable empathy with others and an appreciation of how deep sadistic and perverted practices are embedded at the heart of Church life led by men of that generation, who haven’t yet or will ever accept the imperfections of their own formation.
As Nicky Campbell and others have shown, when Survivors emerge and pool resources, things begin to change. Obviously some didn’t survive, and we mourn them.
‘Glasgow wonders whether it is now too late to bind up the broken levels of trust between survivors and those who have power in the Church.’
As far as this survivor is concerned, it was too late more than 2 years ago.
But who commissioned the Glasgow Report, and set the terms of reference?
“My instructions in this matter are somewhat unusual. I have been invited to
investigate and describe the psychological impact on survivors of the effective
replacement of the ISB, and to offer advice with respect to their future needs.
Those involved constitute a cohort of twelve survivors with varying degrees of
involvement with the ISB.” David Glashow.
There have been a series of meetings, held by the sacked members of the ISB and affected survivors, to try to support those survivors and find some way forward.
DG agreed to assist the group, having been dismayed by the CofE in its instructions (or lack of) to him when he was under contract – and the unfolding adverse narratives coming out. DG effectively ‘jumped ship’ after being so dismayed.
It should be noted that Steve Reeves, Jasvinder Singhera, David Glasgow (and significant others) have been providing their extremely valuable time pro bono.
Add this to the CofE rap sheet. It makes for extremely extensive and despicable reading.
Thank you, Mr X. Can you also tell us when, and in what capacity, David Glasgow was under contract to the C of E?
I believe that he was employed in his professional capacity to conduct assessments of both clergy and survivors.
Janet it is unsurprising that that you came to that conclusion years ago. Although it sounds a sensible decision, giving up on justice, particularly when you have been abused, also sounds very painful in that your hopes of a legitimate outcome, one that respects and acknowledges your truth, are dashed for good. Given the expert opinion of Mr Glasgow that it is extremely unlikely that anything now can be done by the Church to elicit the trust of these survivors means that the Church cannot and should not expect them to trust the new “Commissioner” with their cases. As senior Church figures are responsible for bringing this about, and this conclusion has been made by a professional approved of by them, they must now accept their responsibility to allow survivors to choose who should review their cases.
The majority of survivors, like myself, aren’t even granted a review. Getting a review AND being able to choose the reviewer, and terms of reference, is just pie in the sky. After 30+ years, I want to spend my old age doing something more constructive than trying to engage with the C of E. I’ll happily support those who continue the battle, though.
Having reflected on the implications of this report, I did some searches on pastoral training. Most of the results referred to the ‘Pastoral Principles’, which are not really about pastoralia but about how the Church can resolve its own stupid and self-indulgent internal political problems with respect to SSM.
A few of the results turned up items like this: https://dioceseofyork.org.uk/uploads/attachment/34/training-for-lay-people.pdf. Absent a section on ‘listening’, practically the whole document is about worship and ‘growth’. There is very little about how Anglican lay ministers in York diocese should engage with people and their personal pastoral problems (many of which may be practical problems). The section about ‘listening’ is mostly guff. There are few things more frustrating to anyone in despair (or which are more likely to aggravate despair) than being ‘listened’ to by people who are not hearing what is being said. People in authority who listen but do not hear, or vice versa (viz. Matt. 13: 14-38) are too often worse than useless. Such people then assume that they have fulfilled (or ticked off) their obligation per their training or to the person who is seeking their ‘help’, when in fact all they have done is sacrifice a bit of their time to the person in need, in the belief that all their despairing interlocutor really needs is to get the relevant matter of his/her chest, and that this will, in itself, be a Good Thing, as if it were some sort of psychological placebo (which, in fairness, it might be on occasion).
My fear is that many in authority within the Church sincerely believe that they have somehow ‘done’ something (and have ‘doe enough’) by simply listening to, or receiving, the complaints of abuse victims, and that they have therefore fulfilled their perceived side of the presumed pastoral bargain. And because they have ‘listened’ or ‘heard’ they not only need do no more, but can concentrate on what really matters from a pastoral perspective (as per the York document), which is on various forms of proclamation and, more especially, ‘growth’. Moreover, because they may well believe that they have done what [very little] is required of them, this justifies protecting the institution at the expense of victims, sacking the ISB, suppressing evidence, engaging in serial gaslighting, etc., etc.
I have met some ministers who are genuinely interested in people for their own sake. These are the ministers whom I would probably go to if I were in need, and who might even try to do something. However, I have met other ministers who, if you were speaking with them, would obviously try to size you up, who are ticking some mental boxes in order to determine whether or not you can be ignored, discounted, graded, viewed as pew fodder, etc. Alas, there are *far too many* of the latter category relative to the former.
I find myself increasingly disturbed by the parallels between the CofE safeguarding scandals and the Post Office Horizon scandals. I detect a certain commonality in patterns of behaviour, which I might describe as a psychic or spiritual energy, manifesting itself in similar ways, co-opting and corrupting the good will and good sense of ordinary people and issuing in cruelty and destruction. That energy seems to have a recognisable personal dimension.
Is it perhaps the case that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (Ephesians 6:12)?
That is perceptive, UN. We are all corrupted by the social and work systems around us: as Proverbs says, ‘bad company ruins good morals.’ Many of us, in those roles, would have made decisions similar to the ones we now deplore. ‘There, but for the grace of God…’
Have you read Walter Wink on the Powers? This is what he describes as the ‘angel’ of an organisation – a sort of collective psychic energy or ethos. It’s very difficult to identify, resist, and combat from the inside, which is why we need to listen to people from the outside giving us unwelcome input. In the Bible these people are known as prophets.
There are marked similarities between the Post Office Horizon scandal and the Church of England, the principal difference being the beginnings of a happy ending in the former, with truth coming out, some justice and a trickle of compensation.
There has been much less to celebrate, if anything, from the C of E, which is probably why a successful screen drama portraying events has not (yet) been made.
Rev Paula has handed back her ludicrously awarded “honour”, but it is obvious that she was doing the bidding of others more powerful than she. Again similarity abounds.
Luke 4.6:
And the devil said to him, ‘To you I will give their glory and all this authority; for it has been given over to me, and I give it to anyone I please.
Would you like to expand on that thought? For instance, do you think the devil was telling the truth? If so, what are the implications?
It’s not my thought, of course, but Luke’s, and of course the devil will always lie when expedient to do so. But what would have been the point of doing so here? in any case, it’s notable that Jesus does not contradict the statement. And the implications are obviously massive and endless. One that comes to mind here is that we are all implicated in the ‘work of the devil’ ie sinners, but it’s the ones who maintain they aren’t who are the most effective at carrying out his work. It’s The Big Lie.
Well, I was wondering why you posted the quote here as part of the discussion.
Well I thought it might have some relevance, not least given your reference to Walter Wink — but perhaps not?
We are told that out three main adversaries are the World, the Flesh and the Devil. Do we still believe that, I wonder? I suppose one of the big differences between people is whether they think that this world is all there is, and that those who know that it isn’t. If you believe that this world is all there is, then you’ll focus all your attention on it, and if you’re a nice humane person you’ll devote time and effort trying to make the world a better place for people, and if you’re a not-so-nice selfish person you’ll spend time and effort trying to make the world a better place for yourself. In either case, you’ll be diverting your attention from what you should be spending time and effort on, namely your relationship with Christ. It may be, as that relationship deepens, that you come to realise that He wants you to be active in the world in a certain way — and it may not: He may have other plans for you. But either way, the world will disappear, and your relationship with Christ will not.
I was merely inviting you to explain the relevance, as you see it.
Sorry, this was addressed to Markan but for some reason has appeared as a reply to UN.
Being brought up as a Christian and believing in seeing the best in everyone I have been surprised and saddened to find, in the later part of my life, that if someone is uncaring or unkind they actually mean to be cruel and it brings them enjoyment to bring others down. This can can be dangerous on a psychic and spiritual level.
Some mean to be cruel and unkind. Others are unaware of the impact of their behaviour due to a variety of factors. Cultural differences, blind spots in their personalities, mental ill health, and extreme stress can all contribute.
There is another possibility, and it may apply to the present situation of the survivors of the ISB debacle. That is that the harm done to a few is outweighed by benefits to the many. This requires a certain amount of boldness to admit in public, which may account for the silence of the Archbishops Council on the matter.
In the current case, it seems plausible that the Council, or its General Secretary, has taken the view that harming the reputation of the Church of England leads indirectly to the harm of numerous people in salvation terms. If so, I venture to suggest that the Council has mistaken the reputation of the Church for the reputations of its leadership, either collectively or indeed as named individuals.
My experience of serving in the church was loving and caring, walking where angels fear to tread and far more. Treating everyone with love and respect however difficult their behaviour was resulting from stress and physical and mental illness. Now I can recognise in reading this blog how much deliberate cruelty happens in church that is unacceptable.
Anyone hoping that the Jay report will bring some resolution -don’t hold your breath! This article was in the Survivor Engagement Newsletter and suggests that even though Alexis Jay has done all her due diligence and consulted widely the AC will take another year to do it all again!! How disrespectful of everyone involved and once again the church has dashed hopes by providing misinformation. Trauma informed indeed!!
Response Working Groups
Following the publication of Sarah Wilkinson’s Review into the ISB and in light of the forthcoming Future of Church Safeguarding review from Professor Jay, the Archbishops’ Council has agreed to set up a group to consider how to respond and plan the next steps. This response group will consider the important lessons highlighted in the Wilkinson report and, once published, look at the recommendations in the Jay report.
The response group, chaired by Bishop Joanne Grenfell as Lead Bishop for Safeguarding, will be made up of a range of members including safeguarding professionals from within and outside the Church. The Archbishops Council would like two survivor and victim representatives to be members of this group to ensure that survivors have input into the discussion and that their lived experience is heard. A wider focus group will also be set up of more survivors and victims which the response group will connect with in order to ask questions on specific areas. The terms of this focus group will be defined in due course, but it is envisaged that it will meet up to three times in the next year.
The response group will meet regularly and will consider what wider consultation and further reflection is needed around both Reviews before a final response is considered and made by the Council which will go to General Synod for debate. The terms of reference will be drawn up in due course but for now, the Archbishops’ Council would be grateful for initial expressions of interest for this piece of work, both for the response group and focus group. If you think you might be interested in joining this group, please email engage.safeguarding@churchofengland.org by Monday 5th February with the attention of Mr Athanasiou. Those who have expressed an interest will be contacted in due course with more information.
Thank you Trish. This is now the subject of a post on the Thinking Anglicans page.
https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/response-group-for-wilkinson-and-jay-reviews/
https://premierchristian.news/en/news/article/safeguarding-review-group-at-archbishops-council-scorned-by-abuse-survivors-and-their-advocates?utm_source=Premier%20Christian%20Media&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=14309063_daily%20news%2025%20January%202024&dm_i=16DQ,8IOXZ,PJ10N5,Z8KG6,1
Arrived this morning.
Thank you Alwyn and Stephen.
I am still stunned by the sheer lack of integrity in the AC. They have just been blasted by the Wilkinson report and then they go and repeat identical mistakes.
There is clearly no appetite for independence and it is completely wrong to pretend otherwise. I would have so much more respect for Welby if he just said ‘sod the lot of you I really couldn’t give a **** about any of you.’ At least it would be honest.
I don’t think they’re mistakes, I think it’s deliberate strategy. But how they reconcile these dishonest and cruel strategies with a professed adherence to Christianity beats me.
Professor Alexis Jay to publish report in February
on Wednesday, 24 January 2024 at 12.40 pm by Simon Sarmiento
categorised as Church of England, News, Safeguarding
From the Future of Church Safeguarding website: Professor Alexis Jay to publish recommendations on Church
January 23, 2024
Professor Alexis Jay CBE has informed the Archbishops of Canterbury and of York that she will next month (February) deliver to them and publish her report on how to make Church safeguarding fully independent.
In her report, Professor Jay will make a series of recommendations on how Church safeguarding can be made independent, accountable, fair and trusted, in order to learn from the past and better protect all those involved in Church life from harm.
The report has been informed by extensive engagement with those with recent experience of Church safeguarding, both in person and online, including victims and survivors, safeguarding practitioners, members of the clergy and volunteers.
This engagement exercise, which Professor Jay extended to ensure that all those who wished to share their views had the opportunity to do so, has now finished.
Professor Jay, supported by the Future of Church Safeguarding Programme, which is independent of the Church, is now preparing her report and recommendations.
In the interests of transparency, Professor Jay will publish her report online on the Future of Church Safeguarding Programme website.
Further details about publication will be provided in due course.
An article from Thinking Anglicans.
From where I sit, the engagement wasn’t all that extensive, and it isn’t true that all who wished to share their views had the opportunity.
Nevertheless, I hope she’s heard enough to give her an accurate measure of the truly dire state of safeguarding in the C of E.