For a variety of domestic reasons, I have not been very active recently on the blog. One thing that is preoccupying me at present is the paper I am preparing to present at the ICSA (International Cultic Studies Association) conference in Barcelona at the beginning of next month. I may have something to share about the conference as a whole on my return to England. Meanwhile I can reveal that my topic is about the way that some Christians speak about exorcism and deliverance in the context of pastoral care.  All too often the discourse becomes far from being pastoral but abusive in the way it is used.  Conversion therapy, the controversial method of ‘healing’ LGBTQ individuals, is one that sometimes uses ideas from what we can call Christian demonology to reinforce its ideas and methods of practice.

There is a theme that binds together two recent stories that have been drawn to my attention about safeguarding.  Both illustrate the way that important safeguarding stories often get overlooked.  One suspects that those involved want them buried in a sea of information.  There is the hope that they will achieve minimal publicity in spite of their importance for the maintenance of high standards right across the Church.  The first story concerns the Diocese of Sheffield and some ‘final recommendations’ from the Bishop of the Diocese following an ‘independent Review of Safeguarding Arrangements in St Thomas’ Philadelphia Church’.  St Thomas’ is an ecumenical parish in Sheffield known as the Network Church.  It is jointly run and overseen by Baptist, Independent and Anglican trustees.  The Review was in connection with a complaint about abusive pastoral practice towards a gay man, Matt Drapper.  The details of this episode, involving an attempted exorcism and its outcome, are vividly described in his book Bringing Me back to Me.  The authorities of the Church of England, and the other Trustees, commissioned Barnardo’s to carry out an independent Review.  One of the outcomes was a formal apology by the Trustees to Matt for the episode which took place in 2014.  This apparent triumph of safeguarding protocol is marred by the fact that the Barnardo’s Review is being placed under an embargo so that no one, not even Matt, can read it or have access to it in the future.  It is not surprising that the complainant feels aggrieved when, although he has received an apology, he is shut out from knowing anything that was recommended in the report.   Matt makes the valid point that any discussion about healing prayer, exorcism and conversion therapy has implications for the wider church.  An apology with no attempt to attribute responsibility or explain how things went wrong is a poor thing.  Theological differences about the nature of prayer, healing and deliverance are maybe just too difficult to find agreement on. In this way the church finds it easier to close down the details of any discussion on the topic.  Thus no one has to face the issue of how some Christian beliefs raise profoundly important pastoral issues.  Should Church leaders ever tolerate ‘biblical ministry’ harming and abusing vulnerable individuals in the name of following biblical values?  Readers of this blog will be familiar with the way that the criminality of John Smyth was backed up by some deft quotes from Scripture which suggested that the suffering of Christ was a path to be followed by his followers.   The Sheffield episode leaves us with an admittance that abusive practices took place, and which needed to be apologised for, but currently, no one wants to discuss the implications of what happened.  It is also scarcely credible that such practices were only a one-off event.  It would be very interesting to know what the Barnado’s reviewers had to say about this question.  What is described in Matt’s published account described practices which go way beyond the authorised guidelines published for the Church of England’s deliverance advisers.

The next story, involving the shutting down of information in a safeguarding case, comes from Northern Ireland. It concerns a Church of Ireland priest by the name of Bill Neely.  In October 2022 Neely was revealed to have been a prolific child molester when a survivor of his abuse forced a substantial settlement on the Church of Ireland (COI).  The offences went right back to the 1970s and it was clear that senior churchmen had been aware of the situation.  Neely had been quietly shuffled off to a parish in Co Tipperary from his parish in Belfast, no doubt in the hope that his past behaviour would be forgotten.   No sanctions were ever taken against Neely.  The move, from the Belfast parish of Mount Merrion to a rural outpost across the border is suggestive that senior churchmen were anxious to remove a problem rather than concern themselves with the danger he posed to children in the new parish.   The Church of Ireland is not large, and Neely as the founder member of the prestigious Church of Ireland Historical Society, would have possessed a certain status and importance and this was never challenged while he was alive.  This allowed him to be buried in the Cathedral of his diocese.  It appears that the COI, through its solicitors, went to considerable trouble and expense to try and protect the posthumous reputation of Neely and that of the wider Church.  They were however compelled to pay out a substantial sum to Edward Gorman, the persistent and courageous survivor.  Sadly, he did not live long to enjoy his legal victory but died shortly afterwards.

As a counterbalance to these two stories, involving cover-up and apparent zeal for reputational protection, we must mention the recent honouring by King Charles of two champions for those afflicted by institutional bullying.  Alan Bates’ organisational skills and eventual triumphs against the juggernaut of the Post Office and its well-paid lawyers are well known.  We should be allowed the conjecture that Jasvinder Sanghera’s award to become a Dame in the King’s Birthday Honours, was at least in part an acknowledgment of her recent part in representing and gaining the respect of the survivors of church abuse. This hard-won trust was itself a notable achievement.  It stands in marked contrast with the way that hardly any of the internal church appointees have earned the confidence of survivors. Clearly the main work of Jasvinder’s professional life has been the support of women in situations of forced marriage and honour abuse, but this recent stage of her work on behalf of church survivors may yet prove to be just as important, even though of brief duration.  Although Dame Sanghera is no longer working for the Church, she helped many, just by being a person of integrity and honour, at a time when these qualities seem in such short supply within the Church itself. We will never be permitted to know exactly what was discussed by the Honours Committee but the reputation of the former Independent Safeguarding Board remains high even after its demise.

It now appears that the Barnado’s Review is to be published, following pressure from interested parties.

There is one well-known popular expression which is often trotted out when some policy decision relating to a large organisation fails to gain much traction or support from those who work for it.  Too many people within the organisation stand to lose something if the policy is implemented.  People declare that to vote for the proposal would be like ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’.  For an organisation like a company or a school, new policies often involve the loss of jobs and the slashing of budgets.  It is not difficult to persuade a substantial group to vote to attempt to see off the threatening proposal.  To pass a proposal that in any way challenges the existing power and privilege of the status quo is seen to work against the apparent interests of all in the organisation.  The turkeys being fattened for Christmas have no say in their inevitable fate but, if they did, they would not permit something so obviously contrary to their interests to take place.  The recent survey taken by the Response Group that is trying to find a way forward after the Wilkinson and Jay reports for the Church of England has found, unsurprisingly, that the Jay report is unpopular with many senior church officials and the newly created profession of safeguarding ‘experts’ within the Church.  Jay’s conclusion is that the entire safeguarding enterprise should be handed over to two new safeguarding charities, entirely independent of the church structures. This radical proposal was never going to win prizes for popularity.  I dare also to suggest that the level of acceptance would be the lowest among those who have spent the least time reading and studying it. 

The Church of England should have counted itself as extremely fortunate to gain the services of the most qualified expert in Britain (the world?) on safeguarding to advise it.  Jay was asked by the Archbishops’ Council, in the aftermath of the ISB debacle, to show the Church ‘how to form an independent and scrutiny body for the C/E’.  Now that the Church has received her report and has had its first opportunity to read the conclusions, it is showing strong indications of cold feet.  Clearly for many the independence that is pointed to, as an important ingredient of future safeguarding, would have substantial implications.  These would challenge the total independence of the 42 dioceses and the vested interests of those with power in the national church.  Organisations always stand to lose something when any power at the centre is devolved to groups on the edge.  The common-sense interpretation of independence will indicate that, unless it is truly detached, as Steve Reeves pointed out in his memorable speech at General Synod, it will not fulfil the criterion of proper independence or be worthy of that description.   Those with the most power to lose, the bishops and those employed to be diocesan safeguarding officers across England will be among those likely to resist a radical understanding of independence.  The proposed new structures would continue, according to the proposals, to work with existing employees.  Clearly there would have to be changes in areas like professional accreditation and oversight and this would, no doubt. be seen to challenge existing patterns of power and control.  The fact that Jay has identified serious examples of failing and dysfunctional process in the course of her numerous interviews with individuals involved at every level of the safeguarding process, is quietly overlooked by those anxious to oppose her recommended reforms.  Whenever power in an institution is threatened, those who stand to lose power will always be found manning the barricades.  That is what we see.  Broadly speaking the survivors’ groups and their supporters are most supportive of Jay, while the individuals with the most to lose take a stand that, with honourable exceptions, wants to resist any move in the direction of an outside body taking independent responsibility for the implementation of all safeguarding activity. 

In writing this piece, I was guided by the videos prepared by Martin Sewell and Clive Billenness entitled the Jay Report.  I do not intend to repeat all their points but one particularly useful statement, defining ‘independence’ located by Clive,  would help the Church if it became part of the of the Church’s thinking.

Independence of mind is the state of mind that permits a member to perform a service without being affected by interests that affect professional judgement, thereby allowing an individual to act with integrity and express objectivity and professional scepticism.

The reason for Jay recommending two new totally independent bodies managing and overseeing safeguarding in the Church came from her observation that the existing functioning of safeguarding protocols in the Church was highly variable in quality.  An individual could be in a position where life-changing decisions about their future could be taken by individuals ‘with little safeguarding knowledge or experience.’  Jay interviewed at depth dozens of individuals and received written submissions from hundreds more.  Safeguarding in the C/E, even from my limited experiences of listening to the stories of those who have gone down the rabbit hole of seeking justice and accountability, is a postcode lottery.  In some places, to back up what was said above about ‘life-changing decisions’, rulings and decisions are made with no possibility of any appeal. Core groups sometimes seem intoxicated by an access to a power over peoples’ lives when at their most vulnerable. They seem sometimes to ignore common sense and the right of everyone to a fair hearing.  The European Court of Human Rights speaks about the right of everyone to a fair trial.  The two words used are independent and impartial.  Also, the importance of being free from conflicts of interest is a basic principle of justice.  If church institutions ever think that they can offer justice without the counterbalance of separate structures providing checks and balances, they are likely deceiving themselves.  Jay’s gathering of evidence to add to the material that she had already heard and read in the 7-year ICSA hearings, has given her the status of knowing more about the implementation of safeguarding than anyone else in Britain.  Her concluding recommendation for two properly independent bodies to manage safeguarding on behalf of the C/E is not just an idea sketched out on the back of an envelope; it is a compellingly argued position that has the ability to convince, like a well-presented case in a court of law.  

The current hesitancy, shown on the part of many church leaders and safeguarding professionals in the survey recently conducted by Church’s Jay/Wilkinson Response group, should not surprise us.  For such a surrender of institutional power to be a reality, there has, in addition, to be an honest recognition by the Church that the past thirty years have frequently been a disaster area in this arena of safeguarding.  A system which allows the top layer of management to be the chief pastoral figure while expecting them to be judge and jury with regard to suspected miscreants, is never going to operate well. There are still hundreds of damaged survivors and victims who seek healing and justice from harmful episodes in the past.  Some trust, against all the evidence, that the Church is an institution able to provide balm for the wounds she has inflicted on them in the past.  The history of safeguarding has not been a story of binding up wounds and providing compassionate care for the afflicted.  Rather it has revealed itself to be, for those of us who scratch below the surface, an institution that consistently puts organisational reputation ahead of pastoral integrity.

The provision of safeguarding services to all, providing love and healing to all who have been wronged or harmed by the institution is perhaps an achievable task.  It will however not be achieved in any system where reputation and a illusion of goodness are upheld to the exclusion of honesty and integrity.  There is a verse in the Bible which comes to mind, but in a parody form. ‘What gain is it for a Church like the C/E to gain wealth, status, privilege and power, if it is obtained at the cost of honesty, integrity and truth.’  The answer to the question in the title of this piece may very well determine the future of the Church over the next fifty years.  Jay is calling the Church to honesty and truth.  A failure to respond to the values of our founder can only end in emptiness and tears.  I hope the General Synod are fully aware of their responsibilities when they come to discuss this matter in July.