by Anon
The latest diocesan guidelines for ministry in our local church have just come though the letter box. It is exactly the kind of thing you’d expect to read. It is a document drafted with “legal support” from the diocese, and by our “safeguarding team”. My reaction to the document, as a clergyperson, was one of fear and incredulity. The letter and document tells me that failure to comply could result in the loss of my ministry, and perhaps in criminal prosecution.
Some of the letter is very sensible, albeit lacking legal nuance. I am told that the definition of a child is “anyone under 18”. I have a small youth group that are under-18s, and am keenly aware that the age of consent is 16. The laws on the consumption of alcohol are rather grey at the best of times, and once a child reaches the age of 16 they can join the armed services, and will soon be able to vote. They can drive a car at 17, and with parental permission, marry at 16. Treating a 17-year-old as a child in any church youth group doesn’t seem very smart to me, but I understand the need of the diocese to be risk-averse.
The definition of a vulnerable adult (or protected adult) advanced by the diocese is also vague. The diocesan document says “temporary impairment” could place any adult in this category. So it will cover anyone recently bereaved, or struggling with some other serious pastoral or personal crisis. (I think to myself, the church is full of such people all the time, and all of us who minister, including me, fall into this category – surely the church is a God’s field hospital for the broken?).
My diocese says that everyone who ministers in the congregation is now required to be regulated according to the new guidance. If someone is in regular contact with children or vulnerable/protected adults in any interface that is “ministry”, this requires “authorisation” by the bishop. Ministry is defined as “anyone who has regular contact providing religious activities”. That could be overseeing the orange squash and biscuits for the children after church. If that is a regular duty, and there is a rota, then this falls within the regulatory framework, and so volunteers who are on the rota need to trained and subject to the criminal bar (DBS) checks.
The guidance acknowledges that someone stepping in to help on this rota as an emergency to fill a gap would be acceptable. But if that person is regularly helping, they need to be checked, regulated and licensed/authorised. Anyone with “regular contact” in any sphere of ministry with children or protected/vulnerable adults is now subject to such regulatory scrutiny.
The diocese tells me that this is my responsibility. It also tells me that in the church “safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility”. All of this is presented as “new guidance”, though please note, it is not guidance, because the threats and penalties for not following it make it clear that these are mandatory stipulations.
My diocese also has some other mantras that appear, on the face of it, to be unrelated to the new safeguarding .guidance. We have been repeatedly told – I cannot remember a decade of my ministry when the bishop at the time has not said – that we are to encourage “every-member ministry” in our churches. That “all Christians have a ministry and vocation”. That the church – especially the laity – have to be “released” to discover what ministry they have. And that being part of the church is to belong “to the whole ministry of the baptised people of God”.
If this is true, then I think to myself, not unreasonably, that it would appear that everyone attending church, unless very occasionally or just very casually, needs some kind of licence to enable them to be part of a congregation. After all, if they are doing so regularly, they must have some kind of ministry and vocation.
Anyone could find themselves ministering to a bereaved person who happens to come to church, and simply asks for prayer and consolation from the person they are sitting next to. I’d hope most of my congregation would know what to do, and could extend compassion, help, support, prayer to such a person. (But please note, the new guidelines from my diocese say that anyone sitting in the pews faced with this kind of pastoral situation should immediately find the licensed or authorised person to respond to the person in need, and absolutely not step in – so the bereaved must be left until the correctly vetted respondent is found).
Then I think of those in our congregation for whom the legislation and ‘guidance’ ostensibly protects. Our youth group takes an evening service once a month, and it ministers powerfully to the rest of the congregation. Those who are retirees and of advanced years find the energy and exuberance of the youth-led services to be inspiring and moving, and a young person will often deliver a short talk that rouses the congregation. Does the youth group leading the worship and the ministry like this need to be vetted by the diocesan safeguarding protocols? Or should such ministry not be allowed, as the youth are all under-18?
Every week the Sunday School children give us feedback – within the worship – on what they have learned. Many adults in the congregation can find this more inspiring and moving than the sermons. Jesus and the New Testament had some important things to say about the wisdom that comes from the (seemingly) young and foolish. I wonder if these short, regular children’s slots in worship need vetting?
And we do have some in our congregation who are, quite clearly, protected or vulnerable adults. They have a range of physical and mental disabilities, and live in either nearby sheltered accommodation or a local care home. They vary in age from young to old. They always come with their carers or are accompanied by family and friends. But they have a ministry in our congregation too. Some take a slot by being on welcoming duty, in leading our intercessions, or being on the rota for reading one of the lessons. Without fail, the rest of the congregation testify to how much this ministers to them. So I find myself asking who is offering the ministry here, and who is being ministered to?
If I read the guidance from the diocese correctly, it operates with a prevailing presumption that he able-bodied and ‘mentally-normal’ (for want of a better phrase) are the those who need to be licensed, and those who are less able or classified as children or vulnerable are the ones to be protected. But the experience of my own church suggests that this paradigm doesn’t work. We minister to each other.
The safeguarding guidance we have seems to have missed the quiet revolution in disability theology that has matured in power and influence over the last 25 years, and which grew out of secular developments in disability studies. The guidance also seems peculiarly ignorant of the literature in the field. I think of Nancy Eiesland, The Disabled God: Towards a Liberatory Theology of Disability (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1994). Or of Josie Byzek’s assertion that “people have disabilities because people are human – impairment is a natural part of the human state.” We all have vulnerabilities. That is part and parcel of what being a human is.
To begin with, disability theologians had focused on issues of accessibility of places of worship. But the same theologians would later argue that theological reflection on disability could not be limited to questions of rights and access alone. They began to question the underlying theological anthropology of Christian churches. Theologians such as John Swinton, Brian Brock and John Hull have written powerfully and persuasively in this field. Part of their argument is that the majority of theologians in history were ‘able-bodied’ and that, therefore, the experience of disability had not been taken into account in the development of doctrine.
For example, in John Hull’s case (a theologian who gradually went blind), he showed how most theologians had developed negative biblical hermeneutics on the metaphor of blindness. But that only works because the people writing the theology were sighted. Hull developed a hermeneutic that narrated blindness in a more positive theological light. (John Hull, In the Beginning There Was Darkness: A Blind Person’s Conversations with the Bible, London, SCM Press, 2001).
The new diocesan safeguarding guidelines seem to be oblivious to these major developments in theology. And it reminds me of the puzzling ‘Q&A’ that features in Luke 10: 10:25-37. A lawyer asks Jesus, “Who is my neighbour?”. Jesus answers the lawyer’s question with a story about a good Samaritan – a person who would have posed all kinds of ritual, tribal, religious and implied threats and risks to the victim of the story, who would have been a God-fearing Judean.
One important feature of the parable is that the Samaritan would have been perceived as posing an additional threat to the most vulnerable individual in the parable. So we could argue that in being perceived as a potential threat to the victim, the Samaritan also renders themselves vulnerable. Come to think of it, I find it hard to imagine any ministry that does not involve some risk and vulnerability on the part of those giving or receiving. So, having taken another careful look at the new diocesan guidelines on safeguarding, I have concluded the following.
First, the guidelines assume that all ministers are able-bodied and in a constant state of optimum mental stability, and thus not vulnerable persons. To me, this seems a paradoxically vulnerable and exposing position to inhabit, and a theologically elitist way of understanding ministerial roles. It is almost bound to create additional cultures of risk rooted in dangerous fantasies of impeccability. Even if such projections are rejected by the minister, others could hold the minister accountable to them, and ask the church hierarchy to weigh and judge a minister against them.
Second, our children and vulnerable adults undoubtedly have ministries, and the scriptural witness affirms that factors of age, infirmity, capacity and agency do not inhibit any person from being an agent of God’s grace. They can plainly minister with considerable power and impact. If any person who meets this criteria has a regular slot or designated role (e.g., reading a lesson, welcoming duties, leading prayers, etc), then the diocesan guidelines on safeguarding say that these persons should be vetted, regulated and licensed.
Third, since it is hard to exempt any person attending church from processes of diocesan authorisation – the bar is set very low as “regular contact with children or protected adults in any recognised role…” – who in my congregation is exempt from this? If safeguarding covers everything, then surely it is nothing? Unless, of course, everyone attending church as part of the ecology of every-member ministry needs vetting and authorising, simply in order to fulfil their vocation as a faithful Christian.
Having read the new diocesan safeguarding guidelines, and as a minister, I can only say that I feel vulnerable and unsafe as never before. But the same guidelines make no provision for me in what has clearly become an extremely precarious role.
While preventive safeguarding extends its bureaucracy in these inappropriate ways, responsive safeguarding of people deemed vulnerable according to the official CofE definition but not meeting the statutory definition, i.e., supported by social services, remains virtually nonexistent.
Exactly, or maybe even worse? It’s not just ‘virtually non-existent’ protection of adults (non vulnerable adults, NVA’s), but the current mechanisms harm innocent people at times, and re-traumatise victims who rarely have a snowball’s chance in hell of timely and robust remedial action. I did a 2-year ministry training programme in evangelism after a selection interview.
The course involved Anglican charismatic-evangelical leaders and the New Wine group, with one or two Church Army trained or connected people also contributing. My partner, a Cambridge-educated university professor, became alarmed at woefully low standards as the course progressed, and savage ill-treatment of students not being addressed. Attempts to report problems, or bullying-harassment met a wall of resistance.
I reported savage bullying to an Archbishop. They failed to fix any formal inquiry. My letter of complaint was apparently passed to a high profile Bishop. But the Bishop ignored a glaring conflict of interest, fixed no formal inquiry, and apparently passed my complaint to a local New Wine leader. The Bishop refused to meet us.
The New Wine leader was an Archdeacon, and appeared to have an intimate friendship or relationship with the person the complaint about savage bullying was directed against. The New Wine leader appeared to have minimal respect for national law, Church rules or basic biblical principles of justice. We saw kangaroo court justice and DARVO. People with legitimate grievances were “troublemakers”..
Four ordinary Church members, communicants and congregation members for years, were aghast. A senior cleric got wind of the savagery. They advised the four victims to urgently leave the local diocese. They directed us to their concern about unlawful activity, harassment and bullying, plus contempt for Church practice.
Our sense of outrage was increased when we saw an ex-prisoner, who had done the same New Wine course, but did not appear to have visibly obvious connection to the Anglican Church, get fast-tracked into a ministry post. I wondered if the diocese had zero respect for fair recruitment or common sense.
Olive Tree Media produced a 12 mins online YouTube film posted 30.1.22 celebrating ministry success in a local parish: ‘Karl Faase interviews Joe Turner for Jesus the Game Changer Season 2’. But when you google the St Brendan’s parish (or check out Facebook pages) there seems to be zero recent reference to Joe Turner. Has yet another former New Wine student vanished into thin air?
Are there compelling reasons for an independent inquiry, judge or barrister led, into the savage ill-treatment of countless people being covered up in Down and Dromore Diocese? The Diocese has covered up the Canon W G Neely child abuse scandal for almost 50 years.
But the chances of Bishop David McClay convening any independent inquiry are very low, because the findings might well force him to resign in disgrace.
This shocking case merits wider publicity, and remedial action.
Yes, it reads like a particularly nasty horror story. But hardly surprising anymore.
The thing to demonstrate is that the youngsters were acting under the supervision of the right quotient of authorised supervisors approved by their parents.
As for “praying for someone”, the lesson of the 1970s and 1980s was that “we weren’t a christian” unless we adopted and enforced specific mannerisms, supplanting earlier better ones. “Non evangelicals” are allowed to call themselves that (like the “opposition” in a Communist parliament) as long as they “act christian”.
Thursday “eucharist” may be held in a circle, and if one attempts to “sit” out of communion for sound theological reasons (the wording of the liturgy being perhaps good enough to hear when there isn’t matins or evensong on) one can’t avoid wobbly hands on one’s head.
In one of his books Selwyn Lloyd instructs volunteers to manually maul everyone arriving through the church door, sending the message “we haven’t got space to give you” (just so we know the score in no uncertain terms).
A nasty man who blocked the entrance would practice his devilish procedures on everyone’s hands – and years after I dropped out of that church I heard “we got rid of George in the end”, as if my being one of the first to flag this up didn’t weigh.
It’s my plain recollection (and is not golden yesteryear delusions), that praying for someone once involved precisely: i – keep your hands to yourself, and ii – supplicate for need, in open shopping-list format (the only kind of prayer a real God likes).
I also think the “protestant” custom of shutting eyes to “pray” is idiotic (sorry).
Just a note to say that 16 year olds in England and Wales have not been able to get married since 2023. They can still do so in Scotland although, if either partner lives in England and Wales, the marriage will not be recognised “south of the border” until they are both 18.
Who is my neighbour? Every human being I come into contact with, live near, work with and interact with.
Reading these comments is shocking but not really surprising. All countries have class and hierarchical structures, but what is it about the UK where that issue seems so toxic, corrupt and open to the most virulent abuse? Or is that a naive assumption let alone a question?
I really don’t know anymore, I’m just a pleb from Liverpool, an educated one and clued up one certainly, but my accent and my socioeconomic status put me firmly in the working class. Most of us savvy w class types view the machinations of the upper echelons and even the ‘middling sorts’ with a mixture of horror, resignation, a fair bit of humour and an awful lot of ‘I told you so but you wouldn’t listens’. The weariness of pointing out the abuses and hypocrisy and corruption of those in power begins to consume one, to the point where you know that what you say and point out is honest but it will inevitably and sadly fall completely on deaf ears. In short, the people in various kinds of power are doing things that have nothing to do with servanthood or true leadership but are only concerned with their own wealth, gain and getting through the ‘monopoly game’ intact and with their stash of cash.
I give you an example. Try and speak out against the present neoliberal economy, the lie of trickle down and the whole shifting of wealth to the already wealthy. It is a lie and a damned lie at that, so we already know it’s false. Try and shift that lie out of the bodypolitic and from those who unjustly gain from it all and see what happens.
I see no difference with religious power, corruption and hypocrisy and worldly power, corruption and hypocrisy. It is all a means to an end ultimately.
As a practising Christian who is struggling financially, with long term chronic ill health, an immigrant wife and who wants some kind of economic future like everyone else, I see most of what passes for leadership in this country as broadly toxic, generally corrupt and worst of all elitist in its very nature. It is not fit for purpose. The decline in societies starts with a moral and spiritual decline but quickly affects other things like politics, society and economics too. But what do I know, I’m just a pleb?
Anon poses interesting and thoughtful questions. I’ve just gone through the lengthy and bureaucratic safeguarding process solely to get PTO to enable me to lead group Bible studies. So far it’s taken 6 months and I haven’t yet got the PTO. While the actual training was valuable, I can see why the length of the process and the number of elements to it is putting people off volunteering for even the simplest and most occasional forms of ministry. I’m not sure that I’ll want to go through all this again in 3 years’ time.
Safeguarding is essential, but I don’t see the need to make it quite so bureaucratic. And with all the time and expense devoted to it, the C of E still isn’t responding well to complainants.
A thoughtful article -thank you – by Anon who sounds like a well rounded, responsible clergy person. So much safeguarding to consider for the parish and yet the, now approved, Redress scheme appears to be distinctly lacking in due diligence in this area.
When the scheme is operational it will be added to the agenda of some PCC’s for consideration. In spite of safeguarding, and the atonement required for failures, being declared a matter for the whole church only those parishes where abuse has occurred will be asked for a financial contribution. Leaving aside the repercussions of this for parish finance, for the survivor, who has been bullied, ‘othered’ and blamed by their parish for the abuse (and sadly this is not uncommon) this is a frightening prospect. Survivors are told that they will be kept anonymous but how is that possible in a parish church where only one known case of abuse has occurred. Rightly or wrongly the suspected person will suffer the wrath of the parish.
How is this good safeguarding?
The safeguarding guidelines are unlikely to prevent a determined abuser targeting women or children, for example. They will of course put off worthy people from participating in ministry.
The diocese is deflecting from its own responsibility to provide wholesome leaders and root out narcissists it has employed and promoted. These are the main source of harm in church life.
Obviously we can all be better educated into how other people work, and where offence and other harm could inadvertently be caused. May I suggest a rule book isn’t the best way to do this?
I have read many of these comments and they are indeed very telling. This post particularly is excellent and underpinned most of the problems. I think firstly, there is a real problem with accountability and taking responsibility from those in the most senior positions of power, be that the church or any other sphere of society. We expect this because we see it writ large on a regular basis in political and economic and other scandals, cover ups and various kinds of sleaze and corruption. I remember the 2011 riots and people were getting 6 months jail for stealing bottles of water from shops. Now, there has to be law and order but that seemed excessive. Take a look at Hillsborough or the Post Office scandal et al ad nauseum and the people behind these things or cause them or cover them up causing untold heartache, suffering and even deaths and the knock on effect of all those things are hidden, protected and walk away unscathed, perchance they might throw a few people far down the food chain as sacrifices for ‘justice’. I’m going to be honest, but is this anything new? Secondly, the recriminations afterwards usually take on the mantra of some kind of reform, a ‘lessons have been learned’ and a supposed strenghthening or rebranding of the guidelines to make sure ‘it never happens again’. It’s all very predictable isn’t it? The handwringing after Saville and many other things are what I’m talking about here. It lasts for a while and then we all forget. Thirdly, as you rightly said a rulebook and guidelines and updated rules and regulations and anything and everything else will not change the basic problems and challenges if a) those who are determined to abuse people and the power they have can still do so and b) those in the loftiest positions of power be that archbishops, bishops and MPs royals etc etc are not held to account or can be by the rest of us. If the powerful cannot be held to some kind of account and on the other hand the laity, the ordinary folk of which most of us are, do not have clear, lawful and direct processes of complaint, then all the nice talk and goodwill and heartfelt apologies and promises don’t amount to a hill of beans, in hierarchical church structures or indeed in anything else. Our society is extremely top down and I believe this is one of the major problems. I believe implicitly the very first way we challenge the corruption inherent in any institution or politics or anything else is by direct and honest debate, scrutiny and dialogue.
I leave you with this as a sort of personal addendum. My struggles are quite immense but we manage. The Labour Party promised to tax those with the broadest shoulders and yet when Starmer got in he proceeded to punch down again at the poor, disabled and those of us already broken by a corrupt and mismanaged economy. Deeply unfair and it’s hardly mentioned on the msm because obviously the poor at the bottom don’t seem to matter, the victims who have already been given a ‘right good kicking’ can be booted again. I see no difference between this and the abuse and abuses of power in the CofE. I am a broken man and none of this has helped me. Where’s our justice? It seems to be a long time in coming but I pray for it everyday.
Probably we are unlikely to find justice in these institutions. The bigger they are , the more narcissistic they tend to become. Narcissism is very difficult to treat.
I was on a local bus a couple of years ago, populated by the elderly and poor. Someone fell over at a bus stop, and several rushed out to help them, and care for them en route. You get a better class of people there, I felt.
Our Lord spent his time with ordinary workers, the sick and outcast. I suspect He may have preferred their company. Church was where He was, with them. He didn’t waste any time trying to change the Establishment, but He didn’t waste mince His words about them. But this was more as a warning to others to avoid them.
Spot on, Steve. An individual with disordered affections and drives will often have little difficulty in accessing youngsters and others. Having worked in Social Care for two decades I’ve seen how employer and abusers often work together to isolate and neutralise staff raising concerns. The employers do not want want their business shamed in the local paper, and the abuser does not want to be held responsible for their behaviour. Result: ‘If you leave now we’ll see you get decent references…’, and so the problem simply moves from one home to another. The ‘whistleblower’ is the only one punished, being chosen for the least attractive shifts, negative performance assesements, and treated as an unreliable loose tongue by the company. We were all repeatedly trained in safeguarding, as if most adults need to have it explained to them that abusing a minor, or a vulnerable or disabled person physically, sexually, or financially is morally reprehesnsible as well as illegal. As far as my experience in the church goes I have noticed that safeguarding is sometimes weaponised and used to drive out congregants who may not be popular for one reason or another. SInce a concern may be raised anonymously by a single congregant it is a system that may easily be manipulated. I have developed such a deep contempt for safeguading over the years that I have declined all invitations to assist at services since in so doing I would have to undergo training. ‘Safeguarding’ does not seem to work, perhaps because it is simply unable to offset the disparity between those with power and those without and because the church is a fallible part of the fallen world.
Would Adolf Eichmann be buried in South America-perhaps after his 100th birthday-if CoE safeguarding teams had been given responsibility for bringing him to trial?
In spite of all the thick diocesan manuals, and all the diocesan wallpaper flow charts, the golden rule of life is how bullies and abusers invariably need to be confronted. It often takes CEO’s or senior law (or police) officials to do this. Bullies, if allowed to fester and escape justice, become ever more predatory and dangerous, and harder to confront.
The Jay Hulme case in Leicester illustrates this perfectly. Bishop Martyn Snow was a potential frontrunner to be next Archbishop of Canterbury. But the mishandling of the Jay Hulme v. Venessa Pinto situation exemplifies so much of what is wrong within Anglicanism.
Our bishops in Scotland (Aberdeen) and England (Leicester) pathetically failed to protect people. If shocking criminal harassment, even with a written or image trail on social media fails to illicit a proper defensive response, just imagine how much everyday misery is being inflicted on ordinary Anglican Church members.
Missing the extreme criminal harassment of Jay Hulme looks like failing to spot two living ten pound salmon spawning in the toilet bowl. How did Leicester Diocese ever manage to fail here? Jay Hulme’s comments on Radio 4 perhaps give us the very best insight into this crisis-someone had undue influence with the bishop.
Anglican Safeguarding (*’Safe Guarding’*) seems to essentially cover VA’s and children. Statutory boxes are ticked, and predators with a police or court record get detected and barred. But in terms of everyday lay adults (non VA), ministry trainees or junior clergy, there is essentially little or no meaningful protection.
My late grandmother was terrified of me drowning as a small child. But I demanded to be allowed to fish the local trout stream. So she fixed for me to be overseen and tutored by some local poachers. They knew every inch of the river, where to fish, when to fish and how to fish in varying conditions.
Their tactics were very simple. Stalk the trout. Get very close. Use few casts, just one or two, and make as little commotion as possible. Get larger fish for the pot to the net, kill them quickly, then relentlessly move on for more. Protection of Anglican lay members (or ministry trainees) lacks that urgency, organisation, effectiveness.
Savage bullying and harassment, which drives away so many Anglican trainees and junior clergy, represents an avoidable tragedy of monumental proportions.
Does the average Anglican Diocese have minimal appetite (and ability) to protect adults (ministry trainees being especially at risk) from bullying, harassment and abuse?
Timbo, as someone with chronic ill health and disability, who’s considered way too outspoken (working class) your words ring very true.
I am way more sceptical about the bureaucratic and threatening version of safeguarding imposed onto the little people. If you scare the living daylights out of folk just trying to support those who need it at the local level, with threats and overly complex bureaucracy from central, you get a cowed audience who won’t dare raise their heads above the parapet to call out serious, ongoing, intentionally ignored abuse by those in power.
Safeguarding is really important and it’s serious. Every teacher in this land knows that, and by and large our stare schools do a sterling job of keeping millions of youngsters safe.
So why is the church this crap at it?
Because it doesn’t want to accept accountability and responsibility for the absolute criminal horrors exerted by some of its own
It really is that simple
Yes, I believe you’re absolutely right, it really is that simple.
Sometimes, and I speak as a direct outspoken working class person, it is just nice to be acknowledged as a human being. Class and racism and other things dehumanise and devalue other people to such an extent that we stop seeing people as merely human beings with issues, cares, concerns, considerations, dreams and desires like pretty much everyone else. I have said such similar things on many blogs and social media and usually I have been politely ignored or have got the feeling that people speak over me, around me, above me or at me, but often not to me. Not on here I may add, I have had some good debates and replies. But because I am and sometimes come across as angry and frustrated it almost feels like you shouldn’t speak or air an opinion that hasn’t been approved.
Where I come from people are mostly ordinary, in the broadest sense of that term. People tend to speak honestly and truthfully by default. For some reason, that seems to resented by those in power or almost any kind of authority. I have seen these things go on and on and seen the worst kinds of people rise to great heights and enjoy the best things in life with stacks of cash and many decent and honourable and compassionate people go the wall. It is the way of the world. This should appal and anger decent people everywhere but I see a dearth of concern for even basic justice and decency these days. Politics is dreadful and has reached a nadir and will probably get worse, political and other forms of corruption are now commonplace and almost a daily occurrence, the broken systems of gas, electricity and water continue to deteriorate whilst raking in record profits, prices of things go up and up and wages and welfare stagnate, whilst the extremely wealthy get exponentially richer. It’s said 350,000 died as a result of the last round of austerity under the Tories now being reintroduced under Sir Keir. Nobody seems or seemed to care, it’s all brushed over, glossed over and hey ho the media concentrates on a football match or some royal smiling at a flower show. It is abomination in plain sight. None of it is fit for purpose.
Now, I’m aware that that is a rant and people don’t want to hear it. But I firmly believe that when we turn a blind eye to one calumny others will follow with depressing regularity. We may not be able to hold corrupt establishments and elites to account but we can talk honestly about them and be bold in challenging their hypocrisy and double standards.
Personally, I wish to see a fairer economic system because in essence I believe a crocked and unfair and incredibly divided wealth gap and wealth inequality underpins virtually everything else. I will not stand idly by if they wish to balance the mismanagement and corruption of the economy by the establishment by further punishing the poorest, disabled and most vulnerable in society. Who would Jesus stand with?
All these issues are extremely important Timbo, but speaking just for myself, I’ve found myself getting swamped by the material being raised on this blog away from the central issue of how to survive church. Comments that are really long I find I no longer have bandwidth to read, valuable as they probably are. It’s the same on other social media. It’s rare to get a reply even. Either what I’m saying isn’t hitting the mark anymore, or like me others have just switched off.
You are right. Complexity can drown out basic reason. Advertisers, manipulators, politicians and a host of others apply this trick all the time. Some of the File On 4 programmes on Church abuse cover cover-ups are outstanding. But you need to be retired, or semi-retired, to have the time to listen and digest them. The Richard Scorer article on this blog is excellent. But its perhaps long and complex enough for someone in a hurry to miss or skip. The question of length, word count, radio vs TV vs social media vs book or magazine article is interesting. Each has their merits. All have helped victims of Church mistreatment. ‘Letters to a Broken Church’ helped me. The Ian Elliott chapter of 4 pages at the start hits the bull’s eye. But it’s good to also reflect how the complex inquiry by Channel 4, and longish news feature (or features) on John Smyth QC, were a massive game changer. This Blog is also helpful, because it gives ordinary Church members a voice. But brevity and clarity help our cause, too, as Ecclesiastes 6:11 infers! Too many words, in diocesan safeguarding documents and flow charts ,tell a story I think…..
Both you and Steve are right. It seems when these things break there’s a free-for-all and a rush for everyone and his dog to comment. It’s another way of burying the actual story.
Incidentally, I’ve been reading around people like David Tudor and one common theme seems to occur again and again, and that is they were abusing or being accused way way back in their ministries or careers yet nobody did anything. I alao read the General Synod vetoed the idea of a completely independent body to safeguard and possibly look into abuses and cover ups etc. That alone tells you all you need to know. Any organisation or government or institution, with a few rare exceptions, that doesn’t allow for some clarity and independent reviews of what it does, how it works and who pulls the levels of power and is guarded by opaque or otherwise unseen machinations should set alarm bells ringing.
A positive response is to use-Surviving Church-as a point of connection, and to share high quality internet resources like ‘House of Survivors’ ‘Stalker in the Church’ posted 4-7-25. We need a mixture of ruthlessness and restraint to be effective in forcing reform. That post gives a range of long and short articles on the Jay Hulme case, all appearing excellent and high quality.
Hi Timbo
That’s an excellent summary of yours!
WWII ended with US nuclear weapon use. It was a tough (near impossible) moral decision for the US. Iwo Jima had a well prepared and motivated enemy, dug into complexes of underground tunnels. The cost of a regular land war-to end WII-was beyond what US leaders wanted to pay.
Anglican bullies and abusers are not naive. Countless scandals reveal how they establish themselves, and become untouchable. Informal complaint mechanisms are a dawdle, once a Church bully and chums learn the art of avoiding scrutiny or punishment. KCJ-DARVO-NDA underlie lots of Anglican abuse cover-ups.
WWII US leaders came to see how everyday military tactics would make the slow defeat of Japan incredibly costly. Flamethrowers did work at Iwo Jima. But the weapon’s users had a mortality rate around 90% and were typically dead in minutes. The US decision to use nuclear weapons had a rationale.
The failure of our Anglican bishops, to introduce fully independent adult and child protection, is a reprehensible act of folly. It condemns a range of past, present and future victims. Paradoxically, it sets out to-‘defend’-the institutional church, but it hugely damages the public profile of the Church and credibility in the integrity of bishops.
The Matthew Drapper and Jay Hulme cases are ghastly. But are they just the tip of the iceberg? The time for much overdue and radical change cannot be ignored.
Radical change in the church and general society too is what is needed but imho it is the very thing the elite and the authorities will fight against tooth, nail and claw till they are blood red. I think when we read the OT and the extremely topsy turvy history of Israel, I think of how the nation state of ancient Israel represents both the state and churcb and how intertwined one was with the other, the political and other worldly things tied to the spiritual reality, whether they were obeying God or disobeying Him.
Irish Catholicism has been coming out of a dark tunnel. The secret, if it’s a secret at all, seems to be evicting bishops (or other leaders) who want to retain the old order. We will always have bullies or harassers or abusers, so bishops who hide abuse and serious bullying must face the sack. That’s where Anglicanism must go.
Absolutely agree. Do you think that the Catholic church and Anglicanism in general are/were ultimately just vehicles for the rich and powerful to dominate the rest of via religion? I tend strongly towards that view, yet of course two of my friends are CofE curates and actually one has become a vicar in a very beautiful church in a small town outside Liverpool. They are both decent and godly men, both have noticeable w class origins yet fit perfectly into their roles. I think my criticism and many people’s criticism remains at those who use their vaunted position to bully or abuse others and then hide behind an opaque, impersonal and bureaucratic system protected by other powerful people.
My view? Accountability should be normal in every situation and I would say this goes triple in anyone exercising power or authority over many people. I go to an evangelical church where there is a number of elders preaching and guiding the congregation. They are decent, approachable, godly and ordinary yet extraordinary men. We have no power structures outside of that, no bishops or Eton educated overlord telling us anything. We follow Christ and we pray regularly and study the Bible regularly. We are ultimately meant to be in relationship as individuals with Jesus, each the ‘apple of His eye’. Religion doesn’t come close. Are we perfect? Of course not! But we stand together as a congregation in a suburban part of my city. If being completely honest, I have one foot in the world of the w class and by dint of education, interests, ambitions and lifestyle one foot in the m class, at least that’s how I perceive things anyway.
If the CofE wishes to remain relevant, I believe it must become more grassroots in truth, not a box ticking exercise or repackaged product with the same contents, but honest root and branch reform. I’d say exactly the same thing about general society too, but as a Christian my concern should be for the church and the term xhurch in its broadest sense. Sorry for waffling! I’m enjoying the debates and comments on here.
Rule by bishops is the central problem. A bishop investigating abuse-bullying-harassment in their own diocese is ‘conflicted’. Ideas have consequence, and the results are predictable.
My partner and I (a female university prof) witnessed clear evidence strongly suggesting an innocent couple had every good reason to feel unfairly accused of sexual misconduct by a New Wine tutor. Within weeks the same tutor also accused me (us) of sexual misconduct in crude language. We were placed under obscene coercion to get married. A prominent senior New Wine leader even offered to marry us himself.
It was like lightning striking the same place twice. But the response from bishops and archbishops, even in the face of plain evidence, was woeful. 2 out of 5 trainees in my group left the local diocese.
Which begs a number of rather serious questions, as in why she accused you both as couples and why this wasn’t flagged up and why she (presumably a she?) was being protected.
It sounds horrendous. And I may add that society has flipped over the decades from being rather laissez faire about such things to being monstrously, I can only call it, obsessive bordering on sociopathic about such accusations. Not knowing the person or situation I could only guess why a person would make such unfounded accusations, but as with Pinto, Tudor and Smyth et al they are connected and/or protected for some reason and once thing is brushed over, ignored or rationalised it’s open season really. Normal people who abhor such bullying and cruelty will be appalled, those who are used to bullying and domination in strict hierarchies of any kind may well thrive in atmospheres of silence and secrecy and such things. It is alien to me at any rate but perhaps in the rarified halls of private schools and the like it is merely the done thing. Who really knows?
Smyth-Pilavachi-Fletcher are the tip of the iceberg. The Reformed Churches have vast problems. Catholicism has made gigantic strides in protection of adults and children. The mortal remains of Bishop Eamonn Casey in Ireland, once a celebrated leader, but now exposed as an abuser, look set to be removed from a cathedral crypt. We need more robust protection systems within Anglicanism and the wider Reformed Churches.