by Jonathan

I hope readers will have a look at Jonathan’s original article which vividly describes the vulnerability and powerlessness of a junior member of the clergy when things go wrong. This blog is a follow-up to the original story, one and describes the continuing effect of an NDA issued by the Church. This, he believes, acted as a way of trying to extinguish a significant section of his life. What has come over in both articles is the impossibility of receiving a proper hearing if those set over you have come to a determination of your guilt, incompetence or whatever puts you on the edge of the institution. Jonathan, Anne-Marie Ghosh, Fr Griffin and John Brassington have all experienced with many others having to face the debilitating power of a strong institution determined to protect itself and its reputation.

Three years ago I wrote a blog post sharing my experience of an NDA in the Church of England (https://survivingchurch.org/2022/07/22/my-experience-with-an-nda-in-the-church-of-england/) This shared something of the experience, still fresh in my memory, and the events as they happened.

It has now been three years since then and a lot has happened. I have spent the majority of that time in therapy working through the experience itself alongside all that it unearthed, exposed and irritated. I have also rebuilt a new life for my family separate to the CofE. Amidst all of this I have spent a substantial amount of time reflecting and soul searching to try and make sense of this experience and what it has taught me. Attempts to understand what happened, and how I can close this chapter and walk boldly into my future.

A term I heard thrown around a lot in the CofE is that of ‘lessons learnt’, a term I have come to despise! The way I have heard it used amounts to something to the effect of:

‘Something uncomfortable and/or embarrassing has occurred that we don’t want to admit to, or properly and robustly address, so instead we’ll reframe it as an opportunity for learning by producing a document outlining what we might do differently in the future to avoid taking any real accountability for the harm done or actually remedy it in anyway.’

So with that in mind, I want to take this phrase – that rubs me up the wrong way – and use in a more genuine way to share some of the lessons I have indeed learned from going through, processing and recovering from this ordeal.

1. It’s not really about me

As I’ve done the hard work in therapy and been empowered with tools and understanding in post cult counselling, it’s become increasingly apparent that my experience has so little to do with me. Or, to put it another way, all that happened to me wasn’t personal. If you said this to me at the time I would have scoffed and laughed you out the room! It felt immensely personal and even targeted! While the effects and impact were deeply personal and far reaching, I can now see how I was simply incidental to the deeper systemic dysfunction within the CofE. I see how various actors were simply following their programming and conditioning to ‘protect’ the institution, safeguarding reputation and those with power.

This doesn’t make it ok, but it does re-frame it for me. It feels different to see that the problem is not me, but the ugly beast that is the structures and hierarchy of the CofE following their core values. It makes it easier to walk away and cut all ties having seen the ugly face that had been kept hidden from me until that moment. But for me one of the core causes of this dysfunction is…

• The unaccountable power of Bishops

Three years on this is one of the core issues I see in regard to the great harm caused by the CofE. My experience made this unaccountable power very tangible. This can sometimes feel like a secret hidden in plain sight. How many roles and processes contain ‘bishop’s advisor(y)’ in the title? This is strictly correct. A bishop has the executive power to do whatever they want without having to justify their decision to anyone else. All anyone else can do is advise!

The ordination selection process is a good case study. The Bishop’s advisory panel is just that, advisory. The panel can only make a recommendation that the Bishop can chose to accept or ignore. Same is true during theological training. Taking it a step further, a Bishop can forego any of this and ordain someone, bypassing selection and training completely. There was an example of this in my previous diocese, which was often the talk of clergy gossip. Bishops wield a scary amount of power over people’s lives and futures and this is painfully apparent during selection, training and curacy.

This became poignant for me, when the Bishop ignored the recommendation that I had passed my curacy assessment and instead chose not to sign me off. This makes it very hard, if not impossible,  for me to get another post in the CofE. He didn’t have to justify this to anyone else or provide much of a case. It was done behind closed doors without standardised processes, accountability or proper process of appeal.

This level of unaccountable power wouldn’t be acceptable in any other workplace or organisation, why is it acceptable in the Church of England? 

How do they get away with it and keep it on the down low? Well…

3. The use of settlement agreements to silence and cover up

In the past three years I have signed a settlement agreement and an NDA in the corporate setting. However, they were very different to the one the CofE offered me.

The NDA related to sensitive business information that needed to be kept confidential during an investigation. I was required to sign the NDA in order to continue to handle this sensitive information in my day-to-day job. It made no claim to anything that had happened to me or was my own personal information. This is how NDAs should be used. To protect data belonging to a business, not to cover up wrongdoing. Changes in law should better enforce this going forward preventing unethical use of NDAs to cover up and protect failure and shortcomings of those in power.

My CofE issued NDA made everything I had done in my 4 years of curacy confidential including material of my own creation. It prevented me speaking of what had happened to me first hand and hence sharing my story. In essence, it tried to take ownership of my lived experience and buy it from me. They tried to take from me that which is rightfully mine having lived and breathed it in painful Technicolor. They wanted to condemn me to living the rest of my life bound to lie about a significant period of my life. It was this dehumanizing aspect that pushed me into the realm of suicidal ideation as I contemplated signing the NDA. This was the chief reason I didn’t sign it. It felt like giving them parts of myself they had no right to claim. 

I have also since been offered a settlement agreement when being made redundant in a corporate setting. What was most striking was that this agreement protected both me and my former employer from negative comments. In contrast my CofE issued settlement agreement protected anyone I had ever had any dealings within my curacy from negative comment regardless of its factuality and offered me zero protection in return. As above, they were silencing me, taking my story, my lived experience from me. For what? The initial offer was less than my stipend till the end of my license. I gained more money by not signing and seeing out my license.

In hindsight the CofE settlement agreement was a significant power move trying to own me, my work and experience even after I had been evicted from ministry. It was so all encompassing to take four years of my life from me in a controlling and dehumanizing way. I am not the first, I will not be the last. This is their standard operating procedure for handling inconvenient truths and whistle blowers.

4. What I wish someone had told me before making a complaint

I look back and realise how naive I was going into the complaints process. Though really this was all symptomatic of the belief that I could trust the hierarchy to act with decency, fairness and integrity. In many ways I look back and see that as the main mistake I made in everything.

When I was contemplating raising a formal grievance against my first training incumbent, my new training incumbent was very encouraging and supportive. However, in hindsight – given what I’ve learned since – I wish someone had said something more like this:

‘I’m so sorry to hear you’ve been treated so poorly, I believe you and you deserve so much better. It’s not fair and it’s not right but please know that unless you have significant amounts of clear, explicit evidence of the abusive behaviour its very hard to adequately prove in an investigation. Given the power dynamics in play, it will just end up a case of your word against his and he has power and diocese favour on his side which will all work against you. If they can, they will side with him.’

In so many ways the number one thing I wanted was to be believed and validated in how harmful the experience had been. That’s what I hoped for from a grievance process, but in hindsight I see my folly. Working through my need for validation has been a key part of my therapeutic work and being able to offer that to myself empowering and healing.

From where I stand today, I think there are two options for dealing with a bullying superior in the church or work.

1. Set out to gather conclusive evidence of this behaviour sufficient for a grievance process. This requires staying in the situation and possibly even deliberately provoking the abusive behaviour in order for it to be observed by others or recorded in some way. This can take an enormous emotional toll.
2. Get out of that situation one way or another, remove yourself from the abuse and work on your own healing and recovery away from the abuser.

Justice is a wonderful ideal, but bullying is complex and nuanced with a lot of subjectivity. Is it defined by intention or impact? Of course, some behaviours are clearly and objectively inappropriate, but much manipulative and bullying behaviour is subtle and cumulative. Proving it to a third party, especially one not well versed in coercive control and manipulation, can be near impossible. It is harder still when they have conflicts of interest and other biases that means they don’t want it be true…

When I found myself working for a bully once more in the corporate workplace, I handled things differently having learned the hard way before. Of course, in a conventional job your housing and career are not tied in the same way, it’s easier to leave a job knowing you can stay in your house and simply move to a new organisation – The cost is less. But it explains the culture of fear I so often encountered amongst other clergy. 

5. From Victim to Survivor

These terms are used somewhat interchangeably, and I’ve had time to think about what they mean specifically for me.

From my vantage point ‘Victim’ is a noun, something I am. Survivor relates to a verb, describing something I’ve done: survived. I have moved from being identified with ‘victim’ as my identity and something that imprisons me, to shedding that identity and instead being a ‘survivor’ describing the active work of healing and re-building.

I remain anonymous as ‘Jonathan’ not because I fear the CofE and am not willing to put my name to this, but instead because I have survived and I don’t want to be forever linked to, and defined, by how they treated me. I have built a new life free of them and I want to keep it that way. I survived the hell they put through me, allowing it to be a crucible of deep and lasting, if painful, healing and formation. It has not broken me, in some ways it has been the making of me, not that I don’t carry the scars, and they don’t twinge from time to time.

6. There is hope on the other side

When I was ‘in ministry’ in the CofE that was a strong stigma attached to those who had ‘left ministry’. It wasn’t seem as a reasonable choice someone might make but was associated with moral failing, not being able to hack it, or losing their faith. In the moment, it felt like I lost everything. It felt like there was no hope or future beyond ordained ministry in the CofE. I had been told that was my purpose, and calling and vocation after all! Some of those around me also acted like this was a death blow with comments like ‘did he hear God wrong?’. I’ve reclaimed my vocation from them, it never belonged to anyone but me. Equally I no longer feel the need to equate it a particular job, role or function.

I’ve since met people within the CofE who wish they could leave but don’t feel able to, or fear there is nothing good on the other side. I want to say that in my experience, this is simply not true. I have built a good life for my family, even a better life than we had in ministry. We own our own home, live the life we want to, without the higher-ups breathing down our necks. I am healthier and happier than I ever have been. Ordained ministry doesn’t have to be for life, it’s ok to leave, to walk away to do something different. That’s not failure. In fact, It’s the mark of something operating as a cult when leaving has so much stigma.

I have also finally taken the step to utilise the clergy disabilities act to cut the final tie to the CofE. This changes my status in law to no longer be a priest of the Church of England with all the limitations that come with that for my new life.

I have survived, I am free I am living my life and there is hope and life and joy on the other side. 

“We wish to close this determination by expressing concern about the route by which this matter came to be before this tribunal. False allegations, rumours and assumptions have been blindly accepted to create a situation where significant harm has been caused. Insufficient time has been taken to question motivations and perspectives, and questions which should have been asked have not been asked until too late. There are two instances which stand out sharply in this case.

“First was the decision of the diocese to move the respondent’s abusive husband into a vacant vicarage within the parish in which she was working.

“Second is the worrying acceptance without question (my emphasis) of that husband’s allegations of an affair between the respondent and Mr Slate….

“We trust lessons will be learned and that the support that the respondent should have received from the Diocese of Coventry will now be provided to her in order to support her flourishing in her future ministry.”

Extracts from the published Determination of a Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal for the Diocese of Coventry, dated 22 July 2025[1], following the recent trial of a complaint made under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (‘the CDM’).

The words above in italics and in the blog heading form part of a Church tribunal assessment, responding to a case based on a CDM complaint against a female priest in the Diocese of Coventry.   The case against the Reverend Anne-Marie Ghosh[2] for alleged conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders” was rejected.  In delivering their judgment, the tribunal articulated firmly their criticism of the process that had led to the bringing of the formal complaint against the priest.

The story attracts attention, not only because of the vivid, even colourful, detail contained in the account set out in the Church Times, August 8th, page 3: ‘Clergy reproved over case’.  It is also a clear example of how poor and bungling process can upend a diocesan attempt to manage a case of clergy discipline.  Whatever went wrong in the Diocese of Coventry, whether it was faulty groupthink, unprofessional decision-making or misogynistic attitudes, there is clearly a considerable task to be undertaken to rebuild local trust in the way church discipline is administered.  The case often mentioned by Surviving Church, that of ‘Kenneth’, is another example where allegations have been accepted without question and where considerable pain has been caused to an individual. 

In this blog post we have been permitted to refer to Kenneth by his real name which is John Brasssington.  His case involves an accusation of the abuse of a child which he has consistently denied over five years.   There are, of course, important differences between the two cases.   In John’s case, the alleged offence involves causing harm to a child; in the other the alleged offence is that of engaging in adulterous behaviour. 

Two other features draw the two stories together.  Both of the cases belong to the Coventry Diocese, and both involve systems where individuals have proceeded with allegations based on faulty assumptions.  John has never been permitted to challenge the assumption of the core group in his diocese that he is guilty.  In the CDM case there was, fortunately for Ms Ghosh, an independent tribunal able to see through the accusations brought against her.  No such tribunal exists to examine the accusations against John, so he still lives with the cloud of being considered ‘high-risk’ and unable to play a full part in his church.   

Before we suggest further links between the Ghosh case and the Brassington case, we need to spend a little time noting some of the other details of the current story which have allowed the most appalling suffering to be experienced by the Coventry priest.  The acting archdeacon who brought the CDM complaint would seem to have been too ready to accept the allegations of guilt made by two men in the account, the ex-husband and the training incumbent.  This latter individual had a duty of care and nurture towards his curate, especially in the first two years of ministry when she was having to deal with a failing marriage.  The thought that a vicar, one presumably vetted before being given this delicate task of helping a novice priest, should behave with such apparent malevolence is a cause of dismay.  This apparent antagonism shown towards the curate on the part of the vicar suggests that he is unfit to exercise the ministry of training/supervision for a fellow priest ever again.[3]  No doubt the stories of late-night vigils outside the curate’s home trying to find direct evidence of ‘unbecoming conduct’ will have circulated among his congregation.  Such behaviour will, no doubt, have undermined the relationship of respect that normally binds priest and people together. 

One thing that is worth pointing out is the different treatment afforded to church members depending on whether they are lay or clerical.  One speculates that John might have received a proper hearing if his case had gone down a tribunal route equivalent to that under the CDM.  Such a tribunal would, hopefully, have been alert and able to see through the assumptions and faulty reasoning on display in his diocese.  The safeguarding process in the Church does not seem to know what to do with a layman who stubbornly refuses over half a decade to admit guilt for an offence that he maintains never occurred.  Over five or six years, John, supported by his friends has had to stand up to a long and debilitating demonstration of raw institutional power.

The final chapters in both the Ghosh story and that of John Brassington have yet to be written.  As regards the Ghosh case, the new Bishop of Coventry, the Rt Revd Sophie Jelly, has the difficult and challenging task of picking up a demoralised and institutionally battered priest and seeing what the future holds.  One hopes that the diocese has resources, both financial and pastoral, to deal with this situation so that Ms Ghosh can make a new start in ministry where she is surrounded by people of understanding and compassion.  As far as the Brassington case is concerned, is it too much to hope that a certain humility might yet prevail among the diocesan safeguarding authorities which will allow them to remove his ‘high risk’ status and allow him again to play a full part in church life?  Several attempts have been made to close his case down, but the attention of outside bodies, including now his MP, have kept his case alive and attracting support.  No doubt, the new Bishop will be wanting a fresh start in managing discipline matters so that her diocese can move forward in this area without unresolved past cases continuing to remind people of serious failings in this area. 

Public exposure of unprofessional behaviour by clergy and poor judgement shown by professional committees do not inspire confidence in any institution.  Is it just possible that the salacious detail of the Ghosh saga might create a new appetite for the Church in the Coventry diocese and throughout England to get things right at last in the way discipline cases are handled?  The criticisms of the Coventry handling of a falsely accused priest will not vanish quickly from peoples’ memories.  The Ghosh case and the comparable Brassington case are too serious to be forgotten.  There is, of course, the hopeful possibility that instead of cover-up, denial, and silence, the Church in Coventry and elsewhere may move forward in a way that chimes in with the zeitgeist of the moment, one which is desperately seeking transparency, honesty, and integrity.  The correct way forward will require decisive leadership, perhaps to be provided by a new Archbishop. Is it too much to hope that the cancer of weakened reputation and collapse of trust in the Church will be decisively checked by a new leader?  He or she will have to opportunity to offer spiritual and moral leadership to the nation.  It may be that in the middle of all the political and moral chaos in the country and the world, these values of clarity, honesty, and integrity may be rediscovered.  The Church may indeed rediscover its role of providing inspiration and moral guidance for our nation.

[1] The full Determination can be downloaded from the Church of England website: determination-the-revd-anne-marie-marsh-22-july-2025_0.pdf

[2] In the tribunal’s Determination the respondent priest is referred to by her married name, Anne-Marie Marsh.  The Church Times report states that she has reverted to her maiden name.

[3] The tribunal said this about his evidence at paragraph 12: “We found the evidence of Mr Gold to be troubling. It was quite apparent that he was trying to minimise the length and extent of the difficulties in his relationship with the respondent. He demonstrated a worrying willingness to believe the worst of the respondent. We were concerned that he had clearly been told about Mr Marsh’s abusive relationship with the respondent and yet he still accepted without question the allegations made against her by her husband without speaking to her about them.”

---

 

 

Before the July General Synod in York, I attended a secular wedding where the young ring bearer shyly approached the front of the gathering . To ease his nerves, the civil celebrant reverted to humour ; “ It’s alright son, you’re safe with me – I am not a real priest”.

Everyone laughed. I laughed too, even as I winced at the very low regard which ordinary people were comfortable to be publicly exhibiting at the mention of what a real priest represents in most people’s minds today.  The witty quip works in the public sphere, because, sadly, real priests are no longer trusted (c.f., Church Times, https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/4-december/news/uk/public-trust-in-the-clergy-has-dramatically-decreased-in-recent-years-survey-finds).

As a member of the General Synod of the CofE for ten years, I was part of a body bearing a share of responsibility for that decline; during my term of office safeguarding scandal after scandal hastened the collapse in public opinion. In helping to bring those scandals to the attention of Synod members  I had played a part in dragging the truth into the public domain thereby hastening the nation’s falling out of love with the Church. Yet these horror stories were only “the canary in the mine” signalling danger. As I lay my burden of responsibility down, here are my reflections on some of the other ongoing causes.

The late Queen was unquestionably committed to the health of the Church of England, but we now have a Supreme Governor  who seems happier to commend the merits of other faiths. He has not yet visited the elected  institution which significantly oversees  the Established Church in his name.

 His own well documented support for  one of  principal abusers – Bishop Peter Ball – is an awkwardness for him, but it might have been overcome with humility and honesty. However the institution he leads does not prioritise either in any real sense. When failure is identified the buck stops nowhere from top to bottom.

In 2018 a number of us sought to set out the multi-dimensional character of the Churches problems as viewed through the lens of those seeking justice transparency and accountability. Within the National Church. We did so in a book named Letter to a Broken Church. Looking back we were incredibly naive. We believed that if only people with knowledge experience and professional experience put the issues into the public domain  the Church Authorities, Parliament and the public would be able to see the full depth of the problems. We hoped there would then be a serious engagement and a purposeful  rectifying of the fundamental weaknesses that had facilitated both the harm and the cover-ups.

I think I first realised the complexity of our task when in the middle of addressing Synod at the Question and Answer session, I found myself stumbling across the question  “Where does the buck stop?” nobody had an answer, and neither did I, so I began looking.

With the help of colleagues I realised that amongst the “McCavities” who are “never there” to own responsibility of failures are –  the Archbishops, the House of Bishops, the Archbishops Council, the Secretary General, the Synod itself, its Standing Orders Committee, its Audit Committee, the establishments at Lambeth Palace and Church House, the Canon Law and its benefitting legal servants, the Charity Commission, and the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament.

At every turn, whether we are talking error , misjudgement, constitutional log jam, or , as some say, moral failure and/or corruption,  there is an entrenched  culture of plausible deniability. This is not the time to set out the evidence for this proposition; a simple Grok search will deliver multiple examples from this and other Blogs which have assiduously catalogued the problems in detail over the last decade. Their record of service to victims and the truth far exceeds that of the various responsible bodies of the National Church.

Some may wish to use the comment section to record which issues strike them as especially egregious.

Few invested within these structures are willing to speak openly with similar clarity, but  many would be surprised at how many – and who – is willing to privately acknowledge that this most establishment of institutions is deeply dysfunctional in the face of the moral challenges it has faced.

A number of conscientious Synod members have confided in me that they have had enough and will not seek re-election; this is a disaster. When historic memory departs the culture of dysfunctional accountability will renew its confidence and dominance to the detriment of good governance.

A few Synod voices ended up expressing what others could not or would not say; it has not always been comfortable and whilst I saw a useful role,  I remained. I no longer see that as a viable option. Synod is plainly part of the problem and not part of the solution. A few recent examples of will briefly illustrate.

In York this year following the death of Audit Committee member Clive Billeness I sought to finalise his work by raising issues he had told me he had intended to attend to immediately before he died.

Victims were getting no answers to legitimate questions about monies attributed to the; complaints against the Secretary General had disappeared without trace, credible evidence of impropriety in the presentation a document presented in legal proceedings had been detected by Clive in the exercise of his professional skills and his warnings were being ignored. The report f the Audit Committee rested on the authority of one member of Archbishops’ Council ( The body being audited) and a single elected member; he reported that the independent members had resigned but  explanation was offered as to why and most extraordinary of all, he was flippantly incurious.

A “following motion” to ask that when brought up to strength the audit committee should revisit Clive’s concerns and report; although unusual. This it was in order having been approved through the legal office – very helpfully.

Yet again, the issue was timetabled late in the evening and again a member of the Standing Order Committee preferred to play what we simple Child Protection lawyers used to call “silly buggers”   “Next business” was called before anyone had an opportunity to explain the merits of the case.  The vote was taken without the serious merits of the case being heard.

Although I have already decided I would be resigning, this confirmed the wisdom of my decision. I am convinced that Synod is not a place where serious reform has any prospect of being  initiated from the grass roots, and much of the superstructure of power is as complicit in the injustices as our victims are telling us.

One small additional anecdote; Clive was so concerned at the rational inexplicability of  some attitudes and outcomes, that he had begun to seriously consider the influence of Freemasonry. He had acquired the forty year old report to Synod which had overwhelmingly accepted and expressed concerns at its influence. Freemasonry has traditionally had strength within the cultures of the Law, the Civil Service, some parts of the Church  and the police (from whom many safeguarding advisors are drawn – all of which are “in the mix” in the eyes of reformers like myself.

I asked a Synod question on what happened to the report – and the response from the Bishop of Europe was not dismissive but he lightly confessed that he had had trouble locating it – which raised a few smiles. Suffice it to say – and without breaking confidences –  I was surprised at who sought me out to confess that they too shared Clive and my concerns. I hope somebody picks up the baton. But I doubt this will happen. Freemasonry is not something that those running the agenda of General Synod really want discussed. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

More generally, we often hear that “Synod is over managed” – it is a common internal complaint. “The same people get called to speak”; “ I never get called in debate”; at Synod Q&As, questions are evaded – “they treat us like fools as if we don’t notice” etc.

So 18 months ago, I and a few others called a meeting of the House of Laity to offer everyone and anyone a chance to set out their grievances and above all to listen. There was no mono directional motion. It was timetabled for late in the  evening and many absented themselves. After one dissenting voice was called and declared “ We can discuss this down the pub” a canny member of the Standing Order Committee moved “next business” it was carried so the debate ended. No supportive voice from the floor got a word in. There was frustration and anger at the game playing on display.

Did we all “go down the pub”? Did we discuss it outside of our circle of friends: did we hear from those outside our “tribe”. The initiative was killed off by shallow naivety and gamesmanship from the establishment.

As for myself , now  that I have time on my hands I am free to indulge a separate passion – to learn to play guitar in the “gypsy jazz” style of Django Reinhardt – an equally challenging task to reforming the CofE.

I am however encouraged by a superb mentor who not only can hold his own with the world’s greatest players, but is acknowledged to be  one of the finest teachers in the genre. It is refreshing to work with those who know what they are doing.

As he unpacks the mysteries of  crafting a limitless flow of complex innovative improvisations, he breaks his approach down into small  steps and principles – the motif, the minor 6th arpeggio, the “quotation” etc . His zen like mantra is always “This is simple – but difficult”.

The Established Church is utterly in love with its “special” status; outsiders disturbing its sustaining of complexity are to be resisted by all means possible. It will not change easily. I have come to realise that the remedy is indeed “simple- but difficult”

I confess that I have become  a late convert to the view that putting this right will only begin with the root  and branch reform that would follow disestablishment of the Church of England. Nothing less will suffice. Only that end will, finally, place the Church of England under the same laws that govern every other person and institution.

Disestablishment will stop the Church of England being “a law unto itself”, marking its own homework on safeguarding, perpetrating discrimination, abusing HR, ignoring employment law, and otherwise “straining the gnat whilst swallowing the camel” (Mt.23: 24). That day cannot come quickly enough.

by Martin Sewell

At the York Synod I indicated that I would be tendering my resignation from the General Synod and I now confirm that, having, fulfilled promises to individuals to deliver whilst in post, I have now felt able to make good on that promise.

In this piece I shall set out my principled reason; in a second post I shall explain why I felt remaining was not a good use of my time. The culture of Synod is broken and I see no way forward during my term of influence. 

There is a year left on my term of office, and I could have let it quietly expire, but decided it was better to go early for a number of reasons. Some might be interested in them so here is a brief outline,

First, when re-elected I had indicated that I would not be seeking any further term, so my time for departure was already fixed. As matters have developed I became convinced the I could achieve none of my purposes by remaining and so it was time to go. 

When I first secured election I had stood on a platform to promote “transparency and accountability”; I disapproved of candidates who did not set out in their election addresses precisely what they stood for, often running under coded phrases instead of being honest. 

I had recently read Douglas Carswell’s excellent book “ The Death of Politics and the birth of I-Democracy” in which he had won approval across the political spectrum for identifying how “ the Internet would change everything”. I saw how this would impact the Church and its governance and wanted the CofE to be readied for the culture of disclosures that was plainly about to impact the Establishment in its multiple forms.

Having recently recently retired as a Child Protection lawyer I added – almost as a throw away line- that my experience in Safeguarding might come in handy, and so it transpired.

When I entered office I was followed  by a number of  “headline cases”on Safeguarding  in which I became involved – Bishop Bell, Matt Ineson, the Iwerne Camps/Smyth scandal events in the Oxford Diocese and several others of importance; it is not immodest to say that together with my colleague David Lamming, we became the voices of victims of injustice within the Synod itself; other voices were making equally important contributions outside of Synod. They were turbulent times., yet we were met with obstruction and obfuscation of those who cannot see that the times were changing  

Amongst the advocates for change there was then a simple unity of vision. The Church was unjust to complainants and respondents alike, it was complacent arrogant dismissive and frequently obstructive. Even when their leaders did “get it” Synod often did not – many still do not.

Yet determination and public opinion did achieve some purpose and  those abused by the Church  adapted to the new environment in a variety of ways and I make no criticism of them for doing so. 

Some have walked away; some have received a measure of satisfaction for their grievances; others have resolved to abandon trying to work with the Church and to concentrate on Parliamentary lobbying. Others are waiting on the sidelines to see which of these disparate strategies offers them the best way forward. There is similar variety in determining how one defines “independence” in future Safeguarding structures.

Be that as it may, and wholly respecting each perspective, I came to recognise that whereas once I could legitimately claim to speak 

“for survivors” ( who at one time were united in the singular purpose of seeking justice) this was increasing becoming less so. It was not for me to adjudicate such differences of approach or lend such credibility as I possessed within the Synod Chamber to one view or the other. 

I have, over nearly ten years said what I thought on Safeguarding matters: collectively the Synod knows my views and if  they have not taken my points already, there is little more I could say to improve on that.

With the passing of the Redress Scheme and the kicking into the long grass of the reform of Safeguarding oversight, there seemed to be nothing of consequence likely to be decided in the remaining months of this quinquennial. It was time to go.

I should offer sincere thanks to Synod colleagues who offered me personal support and encouragement; they know who they are, and they do not know how important they were in sustaining me in the toughest of times.

My decision does not mean that I shall cease supporting the reform project, it is simply that I need not do so from within the  institution. I shall expand upon those additional reasons for walking away in a separate post. 

There are a number of words in the English language which need always to have other qualifying words to help us understand how they are being used. One word which illustrates this point is the word gratification.  On its own we do not know if the word is being used to describe something good or bad.  The addict seeks gratification by indulging in his/her drug of choice, whether it be alcohol, heroin or food.   There are various examples we can think of when we use the word in proximity to this notion of desperate craving or addiction.  These forms of behaviour, involving an intense need to satisfy an overwhelming physical/emotional desire, lead to a temporary relief or gratification of physical urges.  The use of the word gratification in this context will normally indicate a level of disapproval on the part of the speaker.  The same speaker may well add other words, like ‘desperate’ or ‘out of control’ to indicate further their sense of powerlessness or dismay at the plight of the addict.

The fact that gratification is a word that is often used in a negative context should not blind us to the fact that it is, when used in a positive sense, a very useful idea.  It can be used in a positive context when describing honourable activity and human flourishing.  Many of the patterns of behaviour that we want to see encouraged in our fellow humans are activated or motivated by the promise of gratification at the end of the process.  The effort of writing a book, for example, which includes physical and emotional input, seldom brings wealth or fame, but it normally offers to the author a sense of achievement and satisfaction that we describe as gratifying.  Writing books is, of course, not the only key to honourable gratification.  There is one particular experience common to the bulk of the human race, that of forming intimate relationships, which brings gratification.  Parenthood in particular leads to the reward of experiencing gratifying satisfaction.  To see one’s children ‘brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord’ is an achievement of great importance and the cause of enormous contentment and the right kind of gratification.

The many examples of human activity which lead into satisfying and lasting gratification can be added to at length, but they all have characteristics in common.  The first thing about them is that they draw out from the individual some area of skill and creativity which reveals some of the potential for full humanity with which he/she was born. What makes this skill/creativity special is the way that other people are often enriched by it.  It does not have to be special skill honed by years of practice and training.  It can simply be the readiness to offer help to a stranger.  I have now reached the time of life when young people offer me their seat on buses or trains.  I accept readily, not just because I do not want to stand on a crowded train, but also, I sense the opportunity of allowing a person the chance to perform an act of generosity is giving a blessing to the giver.  The simple human act of giving will always bring grace as well as gratification to the giver.

Gratification of the honourable kind can first be found in these two forms.  The first is through the development of our gifts and abilities whatever they may be.  Then there is the joy of forming intimate relationships, especially those which cross the generations in the institution we call family life.  The task for each of us is, in different ways, to share what we are and what we have with others so that the world is a slightly better place for our having been part of it.  All of us will want to be remembered as individuals who gave more than they took from others.  If that memory is true of us, then we have cause to feel, in old age, the gratification of a life well-lived.

So far, we have identified two ways of describing human gratification, the honourable over against the self-indulgent/selfish manifestations.  We come now to a third manifestation of gratification which, when placed on a spectrum, embraces both the good and the bad.  I am referring to the pursuit of gratification through the exercise of power.  Some individuals expend enormous energy chasing after the gratification that seems to be given to those who are famous and influential or who simply have the levers of control over other people.  Power over other people is sometimes mixed up with other things, like wealth or emotional control.  This possession of power is not inherently corrupting or selfish, but it very quickly can become something toxic if the person exercising it is also subject to some existing personal compulsion.  This may result in bullying or dominating behaviour, perhaps compensating for some traumatic event from childhood.  Exercising power in a just compassionate fashion may also be, at a different point along our imaginary spectrum, a way of making life better for others.  A medical worker or a teacher has to assert authority and exercise power as part of their work.  Their training and professional skills should protect them from any personal aggrandisement or need to dominate.  Gratification is still to be found in this responsible expression of power.  The satisfaction and gratification created by doing any task well is owed to such professionals.  By contrast the selfish use of power over others seems to promise an instant gratification for the bullying individual, but such behaviour clearly demonstrates a distorted approach to relationships.   Sadly, many people only understand power in relationships in terms of aggression and coercion.  Somewhere along the line they have lost touch with the healthy longing to give to others rather than to take.  We could all speculate why some individuals tip over into the realm of seeking gratification through angry attempts at control rather than giving.  Whatever answers we come up with, we could probably agree on one thing.  In all institutions and settings where some exercise power over others, there will be occasional clear examples of bullying.  For the sake of the well-being of all, processes and procedures are needed to deal it quickly.  While a healthy institution should always be aware of the need to respond and outlaw such behaviour, the main antidote is good leadership and example from the top.

It would be good to make the claim that the Church is an institution infused with the love of God, making bullying and the exercise of power gratification among its leaders impossible or, at least, unusual.  Sadly, power games and the pursuit of what we call toxic gratification are extremely common.  The Church does not help itself through its apparent unwillingness to be sensitive to the ways that human beings can so easily lapse into patterns of dominance that we have learned to associate with secular organisations.  The task of identifying individuals who are trapped in their personal need to dominate others and thus destroy the proper working of the whole organisation is vital.  One person, seeking the toxic gratification of their power needs, can undermine the possibility of true communication right across a congregation.  Instead of what we long for, accepting loving fellowship, there is an atmosphere of suspicion, fear and tension.  The possibilities for each individual to grow spiritually to discover the shalom of God at work in their lives are thus much diminished.   That shalom, however one translates the word, is the true gratification that is offered by our faith.  The desire of a few among the leaders and their immediate circle for the gratification of power, influence and sometimes sexual exploitation over others is deeply destructive.  Many who attend church faithfully and regularly are thus denied the fullness of a nurturing experience.  This they might otherwise have enjoyed but for the selfishness of the few who demand their gratification ‘needs’ be fed through exploiting or ignoring the needs of others.

This blog post has been about the possibility of all members of a church enjoying the shalom/the gratification of living and enjoying the nurture of a Christian fellowship.   Alongside the possibility of living with such a great gift is the common reality, even in churches founded on the teaching of Jesus, of toxic gratification practised by leaders.  Perhaps what I am seeking from the church is far greater sensitivity among those who select and train ministers.  They must be more alert to the likelihood that some who seek leadership in the church are pursuing a path to exercise a toxic dominance over others.  There is much talk in a safeguarding context of protecting ‘vulnerable’ individuals from exploitative behaviour.  Perhaps a still more urgent task is to recognise that when leaders find their gratification in the wrong places, much harm is caused and stumbling blocks are placed to the well-being of the flock.