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.
KRWLAW (2 Jan 2024) have this fascinating statement accessible online: ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores Belfast-Tipperary transfer’.
‘Eddie Gorman talks about his years of abuse at the hands of Rv.Bill Neely’ is a Belfast Telegraph report title. The paper’s online report has a powerful 2-3 mins victim testimony film by the late Eddie Gorman.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/video-news/eddie-gorman-talks-about-his-years-of-abuse-at-the-hands-of-rvbill-neely/42082941.html
This is the electronic link to the late Mr Gorman’s survivor testimony. Hope it opens!
09 December 2023
Statement by the Bishop of Down and Dromore
Twitter Facebook
The Bishop of Down and Dromore, the Right Reverend David McClay, has issued a press statement, following the conclusion of a civil case arising out of child abuse by a late Church of Ireland rector. It states:
“I have been both shocked and saddened to hear of the pain and hurt inflicted in the 1970s by the late Church of Ireland rector. We are prevented under the new Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act, which received Royal Assent in 2022, from either identifying the complainant or the clergyperson involved.
“Any young person who suffered abuse should know that it was not their fault and that such evil acts can never be excused.
“I am deeply sorry for the hurt that was caused to the victim. Saying sorry is inadequate, but it’s important that the victim hears our heartfelt, deep and sincere apology for the terrible pain he and his family endured. I am willing to meet with the victim to express this apology face–to–face if the victim felt that would bring healing or add to a sense of closure.
“We pledge ourselves to listen to and care for victims and survivors of abuse in any and every way that we can.
“Our Church has robust processes and procedures in place today to protect children from the risk of abuse. Trained safeguarding staff can offer professional, practical advice to help ensure children are protected from harm by any person in a position of trust in the Church in as far as humanly possible.
“Our God is full of grace and truth, a God of love to whom every individual is someone treasured. Abuse perpetrated on children, young people and adults at risk of harm is abhorrent and something that deeply pains us.
“This marks the conclusion to this long–running case. It is my fervent hope that the victim can feel his suffering has been fully recognised and acknowledged and that he can receive a sense of closure.
“In the mid–1990s, the Church referred a complaint against the rector to the RUC. The police conducted an investigation, and a file was passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for final decision. In January 1996, the DPP wrote to the RUC recommending ‘no prosecution’.
“I would encourage anyone who has been abused by an individual in a position of trust in the Church to report what happened to the appropriate police authorities and to know they can come forward and be supported and heard by our safeguarding staff. We are always willing to provide ongoing pastoral support to anyone who comes forward.”
Bishop David McClay of GAFCON Ireland failed to name W G Neely in the- ’09 December 2023 Statement by the Bishop of Down and Dromore’-cited above. Why are our Church of Ireland Bishops (and Archbishops) not convening a formal and independent inquiry into the W G Neely abuse scandal? Is it leadership incompetence or moral cowardice? Or might there be many more victims, and a fear of the abuse compensation floodgates being opened up?
‘Mount Merrion minister moved in 1976 after abuse allegations’ 29 September 2022 is a BBC report referring to Canon W G Neely
‘THURLES INFORMATION’ has this online report (see below)
‘Abuse Allegations Levelled At Deceased Former Tipperary Protestant Minister’.
Kilcooley Parish Church, Co. Tipperary.
A BBC Spotlight investigation [Research: Conor Spackman & Pippa Cooke] has found that a Church of Ireland clergyman in east Belfast was transferred to the rural parish of Kilcooley, Co. Tipperary here in the Irish Republic, following child sex abuse allegations, having been made against him back in the 1970s.
Considered a high flyer in the Church of Ireland; Rev. Canon Billy Neely was for 10 years a protestant minister at Mount Merrion Parish Church, Cregagh, Belfast in the 1970s. He was also a Scout leader, who was later banned from the scouting organisation, after being moved in 1976 to the Parish of Kilcooley; latter in the Dioceses of Cashel, Ferns and Ossory, (encompassing churches at Littleton, Crohane and Johnstown), in the barony of Slievardagh, Co Tipperary; 5 miles south of Johnstown in Co. Kilkenny.
In a statement to the BBC, the Scouting Association confirmed it had become aware, in 1977, of inappropriate behaviour by the now deceased Rev. Billy Neely; which in turn was confirmed by the then Bishop of Down and Dromore, Right Reverend George Quin (1970-1980).
In October 1977, Rev. Neely was removed from his role as ‘volunteer scout leader’, and action was also taken to ensure he could never re-join the Scouting organisation.
Allegations made against him are understood to be that he was beating small boys for personal sexual gratification.
BBC Spotlight investigations have revealed that Rev. Neely’s ministry in Tipperary, meant that despite having been banned for life by the Scouts, he continued to have access to young children, through his ministry, which involved presiding over a Sunday school group and visiting at a local school.
We understand that the Church of Ireland are refusing to comment on these allegations, because of ongoing legal proceedings, thus preventing any further prejudice to legal cases.
Rev. Neely returned to Northern Ireland in the 1980s, to serve in the parish of Keady, Co. Armagh, before once again given the honorary title of Canon, granted to some senior or retired ministers of the Church.
Rev. Neely passed away in 2009 and was interned in the grounds of St. Patrick’s Church of Ireland Cathedral in Armagh.
The Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) have confirmed that it has no records of allegations made to the RUC in the 1970s.
Pasted below is part of an Irish Times article about Archbishop John McDowell. Is there more than one ‘Canon Billy Neely? Is the ‘Canon Billy Neely’ referenced below actually ‘Canon W G Neely’? Is David McClay, Bishop of Down and Dromore, in the face of intense media interest, and a recent legal settlement in Dec 2023, still failing to publicly name ‘Canon W G Neely’? Church members might reasonably expect the All-Ireland Primate, Archbishop John McDowell, to fill the void and make a public statement. Church members have every reasonable right to ask about the compensation cost and legal fees (victim’s and the Diocese’s). Bishop David McClay is normally a confident leader and perceived as a moral puritan. Has his customary zeal gone on the Canon W G Neely case? Could there be lots more child victims, and a Church desire to avoid a gigantic compensation bill and legal costs? The silence of Archbishop McDowell is interesting. The failure to fix a formal and independent inquiry, into sinister cover up of child abuse for decades, is utterly perplexing.
Archbishop McDowell’s problems are possibly compounded by completed inquiries, and an ongoing inquiry into Canon Mike Pilavachi. The latest inquiry, led by a barrister, has been commissioned by the New Wine group. Has Bishop David McClay been heavily involved with New Wine, and is he listed as a director (or trustee) on the present leadership team of New Wine Ireland. I directly witnessed horrific evidence of savage New Wine ministry trainee abuse. I was stunned at evidence of profoundly severe mental trauma. A student cried at my home for hours and was a tremulous wreck. A Queen’s University Professor and senior schoolmistress left the Down and Dromore Diocese in disgust at failure to deal with vile student abuse. I directly witnessed how both ladies had every good reason to feel personally defiled. 2 out of 5 students in my year group left the Diocese. Will it take rape-suicide-child abuse or other horrors to finally wake up the Church of Ireland House of Bishops? What else is being hidden in Down and Dromore Diocese?
27 APR 20 Church of Ireland Notes from ‘The Irish Times’
New Primate
Last month the Rt Revd John McDowell, Bishop of Clogher, was elected by the House of Bishops as the new Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland in succession to Archbishop Richard Clarke who retired on 2 February. His translation from Clogher to Armagh was fixed for 28 April and so takes effect next Tuesday. However, due to the current restrictions he will remain resident for the time being in the See House in Fivemiletown, where in addition to being Archbishop of Armagh he will also exercise an oversight of the Diocese of Clogher. No date has yet been set for his enthronement in St Patrick’s cathedral, Armagh.
The new Primate is a native of East Belfast where his faith was nurtured in Mount Merrion parish where the rector was the late Canon Billy Neely………
What is the Church of Ireland legal bill, accruing to Down and Dromore Diocese, in connection with settlement of the Dec 2023 case involving the late Canon W G Neely? Has the Scottish Episcopal Church declared legal fees of around £500,000 connected to the Bishop Anne Dyer situation? Why can the Church of Ireland not confirm the legal fees it is paying: its own and/or the victim’s? Speak up please Bishops and Archbishops!
James, is there any forum where you can put these questions, especially re finance, and get an answer? How about getting a journalist to look into it? Would e.g. Private Eye be interested?
Thanks, Janet, your advice is good. BBC(NI) and various Irish papers have taken up Church abuses. There is a wave of further interest in recent days. The Phoenix (Dublin mag resembling Private Eye) has had an interest in Church abuse. One Irish journalist, Niall Meehan, has written a lot. But, yes, you are quite possibly right! Much has been exposed, but Private Eye or Spectator input could be v. helpful. Daily Telegraph highly assisted in the emergence of CoE scandals which had been concealed. One question arises in the wake of Irish Anglican cover ups: what more is being hidden?
Janet
Sunday World newspaper (Sun 16 June 2024) has this fascinating report: ‘HONESTY CALL | Scholar implores church body to come clean over sex beast reverend’. Hope it comes up online if you care to look.
Niall Meehan, a Dublin journalist, appears to have directed many relevant questions to one or more member of Ireland’s Anglican hierarchy. But no answers seem to be coming. Is there potentially a gigantic scandal cover up, and are Bishops (or Archbishops) terrified of what has been covered up by the Down and Dromore Diocese?
The current All-Ireland Primate, Archbishop John McDowell, appears to have been at Mount Merrion parish (in earlier life) around the same time Canon W G Neely was there. Why has the All-Ireland Primate not made a public statement, naming Neely as an abuser and naming the late Eddie Gorman as a victim?
Does the Archbishop’s failure to do this risk bringing the Anglican Church into disrepute?
The darkness of the plot may get even worse for the Church of Ireland hierarchy. Is there now suspicion that Down and Dromore Diocese latterly tried to use a new law (possibly accumulating further Neely case legal expenses in the process) to stifle local reporting and restrict press freedom?
Belfast newspapers successfully challenged the new law very recently. Do we need to perhaps highlight the lax approach of some members of the Church of Ireland hierarchy, and should heads roll for the abuse cover ups (past or more recent) in the Down and Dromore Diocese?
My impression is of clay-footed leadership incompetence, tragically coupled with satanic immorality, endangering a good number of totally innocent people.
The lengths to which the Church of Ireland has gone to try concealing abuse for half a century is in itself interesting. That will raise some very interesting lines of inquiry if the media pursue the situation more deeply. What (or Who) is being protected, and Why-such as vast expenditure of time-energy-money?
James
I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that COI behaves so much like the C of E, but it’s depressing. And they wonder why fewer people are going to church!
Benedictine or Anabaptist simplicity has an appeal, and for very good reason. Lots of people continue to believe, but keep themselves distanced from an institutional Church tradition blighted by the serial cover up of abuse. ‘Letters to a Broken Church’ should be compulsory reading for ministry trainees. Maybe somebody should gift Archbishop John McDowell and Bishop David McClay copies of the book!
Phoenix article cut and pasted below.
Here’s an article cut and pasted from The Phoenix:-
THE PHOENIX
CoI SLEEPS SOUNDLY
Date: December 14, 2023 – Fit to Print?
LAST WEEK the Church of Ireland (CoI) and the Scouts Association forked out £100,000 in damages to Eddie Gorman, who was abused by Rev WG (Bill) Neely in Mount Merrion Church, Belfast. Neely also abused children as a scout leader. The scouts expelled Neely in 1976 but the CoI did not – far from it. He was silently transferred to rural Tipperary, where he officiated at Sunday school and served on education committees.
The abuser rebuilt his reputation and was elected a canon of Dublin’s St Patrick’s Cathedral – appropriately, since St Patrick’s also pursued an abuse cover-up (see The Phoenix 25/8/23) – and founded and ran the Church of Ireland Historical Society (CoIHS).
CoI synods praised his work, while bishops at the time kept quiet – whatever they knew about Neely, they knew better than to interrupt these exercises in hypocrisy. Instead, the bishops approved CoI Safeguarding Trust reports. They may have blushed inwardly at media mention of the Vatican’s handling of clerical abuse but the CoI bishops need not worry about a similar intrusion.
KRWLAW, Gorman’s solicitors, issued a statement on the Neely settlement. It was picked up by the Belfast Telegraph online, although was ignored in print. David McClay, the current Bishop of Down and Dromore, said in his press statement that the law prevented naming Neely or his victim. McClay was “shocked and saddened to hear of the pain and hurt inflicted… by the late Church of Ireland rector” etc etc. Belfast’s Sunday Life also picked up the story and that was that.
Down south it was a case of ‘Abuse? A priest you say. Oh, a Protestant priest. Forget it’, despite the Tipperary connection.
The Irish Times did not report the story – but the paper is consistent. It also refused to report that the CoIHS lied about Neely’s involvement: web pages deleted Neely’s name on a society academic prize. The paper also refuses to report the sectarian nature of a Government inquiry into educational abuse that excludes Protestant victims.
The paper rebuffed Dr Niall Meehan of Griffith College, who sent letters, statements and notes in the past year on Neely, the CoIHS and the inquiry.
Undaunted, he wrote again on Monday: “Unfortunately, no coverage of the Neely settlement today. The legal firm representing Eddie Gorman… says there are three more cases involving the CoI in the pipeline. Do you think the paper will ever get around to covering them?”
Fat chance. The paper, like the bishops, is asleep.
I observe this news story regarding the Sheffield situation.
BBC News – Tory candidate was trustee of church that ‘endorsed’ conversion therapy
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4ngprp5xdvo
It appears that “lightly redacted” copies of the report are now available via the link in the article, which was working when I checked a minute ago.
Here is the report: https://www.sheffield.anglican.org/barnardos-independent-investigation-statement/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0N1RwE0F0vAo7K2ZYz-F9iIosGoYUTyONCPHMyY-GjD7HkZZf6bTOuZlw_aem_fQ0vHWmYKnwObgo-9co4Rg
Read through it. Who wrote it and what are their theological-legal-clinical credentials? Does it have the flavour of a legal report?
‘Tory candidate was trustee of church that ‘endorsed’ conversion therapy’ BBC News 1 July 2024 is an interesting examination of the breaking story.
The Sheffield inquiry report is far from easy reading. Does it lack a clear to follow Intro-Main Points-Conclusion?
The ‘Canon W G Neely’ abuse fiasco has blighted Belfast Anglicanism for almost 50 years. Irish Times (27.4.20) ran-‘New Primate’-stating: ‘The new Primate is a native of East Belfast where his faith was nurtured in Mount Merrion parish where the rector was the late Canon Billy Neely’. Why has John McDowell (All-Ireland Anglican Primate) still not fixed up a barrister (or judge) led inquiry into savage abuse being covered up in Down and Dromore Diocese?
Presumably because there’s too much to hide, and he doesn’t want the publicity?
That never works as a strategy. Indeed, Jesus said ‘nothing shall be hidden’, and ‘what you do in secret shall be shouted from the housetops’.
Archbishop John McDowell, All-Ireland Primate, might at least confirm if the reference in the 2020 report on his elevation to Primate is to Canon W G Neely (the subject of a Dec 2023 legal settlement reported by the media), or is it to different Canon Neely? The Anglican Church in Ireland, in a statement from Bishop David McClay, recently cited a legal need to not name W G Neely. But Belfast media groups successfully challenged that law, and there now appears to be no problem with the Church of Ireland naming ‘Canon WG Neely’. Does Archbishop McDowell bring shame on the Anglican Church by failing to publicly name ‘W G Neely’ as an abuser? Should the Irish Primate now confess how child abuse was cynically covered up for almost half century? Should he also fix up a barrister led independent inquiry to address a major scandal?
There is a huge present Belfast media interest in revocation of the NI law (potentially protecting abusers from being named). The Justice Minister, Naomi Long of Alliance Party, is in the spotlight because she may want to challenge the latest legal decision, and incur publicly paid legal cost in the process.
I spotted the Sheffield reports on this morning’s BBC news website, (2/7/24) very rapidly followed by a ViaMedia article by ‘Anon’, which raised almost as many questions as they answered. Having reread them several times to make sure I got the chronology right, I posed a few of them on the Thinking Anglicans web site earlier this evening. I won’t repeat them here, but it is worth asking how a church which, it would appear, grew out of one disaster was so utterly lax about its subsequent practices, and noone noticed. That particularly includes the ‘safeguarding officer’ who, despite being a member for some 15 years, claims they knew nothing whatsoever about what was going on with the ‘exorcisms’, their public celebration or, indeed, the issues which Mr Grapper raised while she was still in post.
Even more surprising, given her statements that she is opposed to gender conversion therapy (gct) and knows little about it, is the BBC report that she was one of a group of right wing Tory MPs who lobbied Sunak to drop legislation banning the practice. Well, I won’t say any more on that issue!
The other thing which alarms me – and remember, I only know what’s available on public media – is the apparent absence of the diocesan exorcist at these ceremonies. Following the dreadful Wakefield case, now some 35 – 40 years ago, each diocese has an official exorcist – who, as we were reminded at my own church only ten days ago – is the only person authorised to do them. Was he included, or even informed about what was happening? It sounds as if the church concerned drove a beer-wagon sized team of horses through the legislation which impacts almost every minute of our church lives – and nobody knew or cared.
In the ViaMedia article, Mr Drapper states that the church lied, bluntly and baldly, denying in writing they’d ever done these things, yet have now had to admit to it. Their offences are compounded by the dioscesan cover up. This is beyond corruption, surely? How can we claim to be God’s house, his kingdom on earth and a light to the world when the heirarchy knowingly conceal depravity which would make Nero blush? Yes, I’m angry – not least because I can do nothing about the deliberate dishonouring of my saviour’s name, which is what it is.
Read through it. Who wrote it and what are their theological-legal-clinical credentials? Does it have the flavour of a legal report?
Exorcism has been relabelled ‘deliverance ministry’ in charismatic circles. They would often, therefore, not see any need to involve or inform the diocesan exorcist. And the safeguarding officer might genuinely not know about such an incident, if those involved, or the church as a whole, didn’t believe it to be a safeguarding matter. That said, the disingenuity displayed here does border on the deceitful. And of course it’s very damaging for the subject or victim.
Am I just missing it, or does the report fail to mention the credentials of the writers: clinical-theological-legal? What does ‘safeguarding professional’ really mean?
Does the Anglican tradition perhaps leave open the possibility of major exorcism, but with clear stipulations around full assessment or analysis of a situation, before this rare and radical action might ever be considered? Latterly, our Anglican Bishops were possibly quite slow to ‘drive out’ a number of charismatic or evangelical abusers: years or decades to do this!
Writers sometimes celebrate how the charismatic renewal movement added much needed change to a forensically cold faith expression dominated by systematic theology in the past. But have we turned to a different extreme now, where expressions of faith desperately need an injection of reason and apologetics?
And is that-reason or logic-also the critically missing ingredient in safeguarding foul ups and abuse cover ups?
Well, James, I can only speak from past experiences. I was present when a couple of these amateur exorcisms took place in an independent house church, and believe me, they are not pleasant – a great deal of shouting, bawling about the power of Jesus’ blood and a lot of writhing and torment. And, in some cases, not a lot to show for it.
The problem partly stemmed from an over simplified view of ‘every member ministry’; almost ‘every man his own exorcist’ as well as bible scholar. Some very sloppy teaching and some ‘popular’ books
encouraged people to go beyond their limits, with more enthusiasm that common sense, and some serious incidents resulted.
Unfortunately the charismatic movement always had a degree of anti-intellectualism about it which grew worse as time went on; indeed is why I distanced myself from the organised ‘show’. It needs both the active involvement of the Holy Spirit in people’s lives and a willingness to test the leadings which we think we’re getting from her . All too often, in a wide range of issues, the latter gets forgotten.
Dare I say this – as a young student, I had one really frightening encounter with genuine spiritual evil, and that was enough. You don’t mess with those charmers unless you are absolutely sure God’s called you to do so. My subsequent house church experiences led me, rightly or wrongly, to stay well away from anybody who over-believed in the demonic – they frighten me more than the demons do, sometimes! So go VERY carefully.
As for the missing ingredient in cover ups, I’d call it pride (and corruption) rather than reason. Jesus, his honour and integrity matter a great deal to me; anything which damages that, as these repeated cover-ups surely do, is an affront to his role as my saviour and Son of God. Putting the reputation of the church ahead of his (who was made of no reputation for our sake) may come very close to blasphemy , and he himself condemned those who did so. Remember the tombs of the prophets?
I err on the side of caution these days – its called maturity and experience!
God bless
The problem is that among some streams of charismatic thought, deliverance ministry is almost an everyday form of ministry. Pretty much anything from having a Freemason ancestor, being sexually abused, through to having been a witch yourself is believed to leave you ‘demonised’. To my recollection, this unhealthy strand began with a few fringe people like Keith (Kevin?) Hagin and Derek Prince in the late 70s, but became widespread via Ellel Grange, Wimber, and then Sozo.
I wrote about Sozo here a couple of years ago: https://survivingchurch.org/2020/07/30/bethel-sozo-part-1-coming-to-a-church-near-you/.
Sorry, Janet, I started a reply, paused to read your link and lost the reply I’d typed. Try again. And thanks for that link.; very enlightening.
Sozo I’ve never heard of, but the concepts are familiar. The acronym BS, in my world at least, has another and, dare I say very accurate rendering? Something to do with bovine detritus…..
Adrian Plass very nicely sent these ideas up in one of his Sacred Diaries, with Mrs Flushpull suggesting a girl with a Greek goddess’s name , or her parents had been dabbling in the occult. (Give me John Buchan’s ‘The Dancing Floor’ any day.)
There’s a major psychological problem here – most of us are unlikely to know much of our forebears’ beliefes and practices, beyond, say our grandparents’ generation. Someone claiming ‘spiritual knowledge’ of their past can hang anything they wish onto our ‘peg’ in the certain knowledge it probably can’t be challenged, laying us wide open to all manner of suggestion. The two books ‘Charismania’ and ‘Is God still an Englishman?” contain numerous tragic examples.
Prince (who I believe ended under something of a cloud) and Wimber were examples of uncritical adulation and ‘herd instinct’ – a spontaneous following by people eager for change and ‘God’s new thing’. Its very hard to stand against such waves – you’re usually accused of resisting the Holy Spirit – but it’s essential. As always, caveat empore and, if it sounds too good to be true – it usually is!
I knew Eric Delve personally, many years ago as a fellow parishioner, and the vicar of that parish went to work at Ellel! This world is very small.
I know how neatly people play with words too – and it borders on the dishonest. It seems to come back down to a culture with very short memories – OK, some of the people involved may not even have been born when the Wakefield case happened, so not heard of it .
It came to my mind because we had an address recently at church on ‘Jesus the exorcist’ (The Gadarene demoniac) and a vicar who had had experience of genuine exorcism was asked to remind us about the rules. Given the background to the church involved, I’d have thought the minister would have been extra careful.
But then my church are very strict in these things. Others, apparently are not.
The key thing is perhaps defining major and minor exorcism perhaps? Is there good reason to consider psychiatric analysis of anything remotely veering towards the latter, or indeed the former? And within mainstream Churches, for diocesan seniors to be informed about what is happening comes into play. There are some super short texts on all of this, and they all seem to veer towards profound caution, and being circumspect, and a team of experienced people assessing the situation? More attention needs to be given to the exorcism of clerical abusers!
But the branches of the charismatic movement where deliverance ministry is carried out have so much invested in not defining it clearly, that distinguishing between major and minor exorcism – or exorcism and deliverance/healing ministry – is never going to happen. In fact the boundaries seem to get increasingly fuzzy.
The other problem is that big charismatic evangelical churches like HTB and its network are big financial contributors, so diocesan authorities tend to back off from discipline. As indeed we’ve seen with Mike Pilavachi and St Thomas Philadelphia. It remains to be seen what will happen if such churches withdraw their giving due to LLF.
Exactly. A rose by any other name is still a rose! And there are a few too many reputations at stake, too.
There’s something in most of us that craves sensation, success and possibly being put on a pedestal, which “is not how you learned of Christ.”
This is where we’re going beyond my personal experience – I can only comment in a general manner, so will Janet, Simon or Steve (who will know more) please correct me if I say owt wrong?
From comments I have read, made by responsible clergy in this role, the vast majority of their cases do indeed involve psychiatric issues, and only very rarely ever enter the realms of the genuine demonic. This is why the rules require proper investigation by a person trained in mental health techniques and who knows what they are dealing with. You or I haven’t got that knowledge and, far from being bliss, ignorance can be very dangerous.
One thing I learned from earlier chats here and on TA is that the human un – and sub conscious minds are far more active and powerful than we may realise, are very good at telling us what we want to hear, and convincing us it’s God speaking. Caution is needed again – hence the need for testing and validation by others.
Another ‘favourite’ is the idea that demons infest an area where there has been a mental home – oh, yes, I’ve heard that one several times, and always from extreme charismatics . Crude medieval superstition, based on fear. And once into the culture of a belief system, sadly, it is impossible to erradicate.
Janet made the point about hair-splitting terminology – calling something by a fancier name doesn’t change the issue (Ie a refuse disposal operative is still a bin man) and ‘deliverance ministry’ is really no different to exorcism. It may help some people get round the rules, but I made the point having recently been reminded of it in church. Rules, remember, are there for a very good reason – “the guidance of wise men, and the obedience of fools”.
Tell you a story – there was a new family joined my then church – nice enough folk, but I never felt comfortable around the father – nothing definable, but bad vibes. I could feel my nerves reacting in his presence. Turned out he was abusing his one daughter, and then started on her younger sister. You could say that the Holy Spirit was warning me about him – but you couldn’t go to the church leaders with so little in the way of concern. You felt ‘creepy’, but nothing more than that? Would anyone listen?
Clerical abuse caused by demons, my Aunt Jemima’s big left toe. Pride, arrogance, power, conceit and a belief the system will protect them are more likely – and they can get a hold on us all!
Mental health is poorly understood by the medical profession and largely avoided in favour of pharmaceutical or surgical interventions. So it’s perhaps no surprise that those in the churches understand it poorly as well, mislabelling mental phenomena as something else, or even demonic.
In more charismatic congregations of whichever denomination, authority indeed appears to be delegated to Every Member, with the risk of make-it-up-as you-go-along being the operative principle. That people are likely to be harmed is an operating certainty. Can we still do prayer ministry? Perhaps. Personally I’d avoid it because it’s almost impossible to control what gets done by people (albeit well meaning?) wanting to “deliver” people. God doesn’t need our performance targets anyway.
The more I study the mind and the way we interact with each other, the more I realise I don’t know. I try to avoid being reductive. Unconscious communication between people is normal and routine and poorly understood. Rarely are the phenomena we witness spiritual, although being body and spirit, we’ll never know. God has left this uncertainty deliberately, in my opinion.
Thank you, Steve. I’d based some of my earlier comments on things you’ve said previously – they reflected my own intuitive thinking, but at a much higher level of understanding than I’m capable of.
A lot of the early charismatic ideal had a lot in common with Congregationalism – the spirit guiding and working through ‘every member’ and, in many ways that was, still is and always will be an effective working model for an activated church. (God has no room for one man bands who lord it over everyone else. ) Where time and experience have shown its weakness, however, is the tendency to form splinter groups and, perhaps most dangerously, for over-simplified understandings to mislead people into going way beyond their personal limits. ‘Deliverance ministry’ and exorcism are a very specific example.
‘Everyday’ prayer ministry is very much a valid role for believers – in the past, as a chalice bearer I also exercised a low key prayer ministry with people requesting it, but that was in the appropriate context of a public worship service. It requires a degree of sensitivity and a humble servant heart, which sometimes are sadly lacking. But we need to know our limitations – both of our own faith, and those God puts upon us – and know when to back off and hand the case to someone better qualified.
Unfortunately if, as so many charismatics appear to, you read the NT literally, then demons, mental illness and heaven knows what else come into play. Its part of our innate mental set to fear, and demonise things we don’t understand, be it mental health or asylum seekers. And its wrong. Equally sadly, there seems very little we can do about it – but then I’m a very rational believer.
My marriage to Jill is a good example of unconscious communication – we instinctivley know what the other is thinking without speaking! Similarly, hearing ‘the Lord say’ is very subjective – but, yes, it does happen. There are more things in heaven, earth and nside the human skull than are dreamed of, my dear Horatio.
How did Sunday’s sermon go?
Maybe a great manifestation of satanism with Anglicanism is the perpetual cover up of savage abuse? Has anything done such damage to the witness of our Church? Odd, too, a relative silence on abortion, yet a willingness to jump into endless debate onLGBTQ+ issues.
let’s not go down that road. Divorce and remarriage is under a similar (personal) embargo.
I have respect for the Catholic tradition’s pro-life stance. All the other conundrums: divorce, remarriage, female ordination, same sex blessings in Church etc…etc…etc…..surely pale into insignificance when we look at the UK’s average weekday “termination” stats
Yes, but like so many other problematic issues, it’s not always black and white. Originally the law was changed, at least in part, to do away with very dangerous (and illegal) back-street operators. Sometimes, as with a couple of cases I know of, its medically essential, sadly a trade-off between saving one life or losing two. And, dare I say, you and I are not best placed to express opinions on the subject…….?
Take a look at NHS website’s image entitled ‘Dating Scan’. The abortion industry faces a day of reckoning. Do up to 98% of abortions in the UK have nothing to do with the clinical necessity stipulation you cite, a red herring perhaps, if pre-1967 law already left freedom to perform TOP where maternal life was threatened? When anyone looks at clinical images and data in detail, does revulsion to abortion often arise? Is it oddly hypocritical, how some Anglican Bishops get up on their high horse about their perceptions of non-heterosexual sin, yet regular intercourse produces the modern abortion horror in the UK? The silence of Anglicanism on this is surely shocking. Back street abortion was ugly and problematic, but is posting out packs of abortion pills to private addresses in our own era “good” or “humane” medicine?
I’m not sure we should be trespassing on Stephen’s hospitality by going off-topic in this way.
That’s why I was trying to deflect the conversation! And why, being a man, who will never have to make a decision on that subject, I don’t want to touch it! I lack the essential qualification of direct involvement.
Thank you, and good morning anyway. Nice to hear from you again.
Good morning to you, John and James. A big day for the UK!
Yes morning all, and for me the most interesting 24 hours in the political cycle, because stuff actually changes!
A cheeky question here, and it best be a rhetorical one for this stream, for we shouldn’t presume too much on our host’s patience, but this: are our politicians better or worse than our senior Church leaders?
As far as I can see, Steve, they’re turned out of the same mold. And I won’t let anyone draw me further on this one!
I said something once during the covid shambles to a Christian friend (which remark was not to the credit of a certain former PM) Her stepson remarked, “Golly, I never knew Christians could be that blunt. Is he a northerner?”
If voting actualy changed anything, the establishment would ban it. Who said that?
See-saw, Margery Daw,
Downing Street’s got a new master.
Larry can play all this long summer day,
The removal van can’t go faster…….
Indeed! ‘All things bright and beautiful….unless one is Rishi Runak…….’
‘All things bright and beautiful….unless one is Rishi Runak…….’
This item from a Dublin academic and journalist makes fascinating reading: https://x.com/niallmeehan/status/1809165520295321635?s=51&t=UCiHxg8jfKJuH3QJ6rj68Q
When abuse cover up gets into the DNA of Anglicanism it has repercussions. Dublin journalist and academic, Niall Meehan, does our denomination a favour by posting about The Church of Ireland Historical Society. Can someone maybe let me know if the link works, please?
What’s the solution to getting the Church of Ireland Bishops to finally name Canon W G Neely as an abuser after almost 50 years of deceit? The latest emerging inquiry report, on attempts being made to drive demons out of a gay Church member in Sheffield, are fascinating. Will the Sheffield exorcist(s) or exorcism team be seeking openings outside the Church of England? Could they travel to Ireland, and try driving the ‘spirit of deceit and dishonesty’ from the Church of Ireland hierarchy, which to date has prevented them naming Canon W G Neely as an abuser?