For anyone who has ever studied ancient history, the religious world of the Greeks and the Romans is an enigma. Greek and Roman myth is all about the gods being capricious, spiteful, and downright cruel – and often for mere sport. Think of the worst kind of bullying at school, and map it on to some kind of spiritual cosmos.
Never challenge the powers of the gods. Give them your total respect. Because if you so much as look at them in a funny way, your life might be cursed and ruined.
The ancient gods were worshipped out of fear and admiration. People had their favourite gods in much the way that they love celebrities today. Nobody expects an ancient god or a modern celebrity to be a flawless being. They just dole out favours. And the followership can be as fickle as the object of adoration on any pedestal
I am writing this on the day that Lord Peter Mandleson has been sacked as His Majesty’s Ambassador to Washington DC. It appears that the due diligence in his appointment was not as thorough as it might have been, and that Mandelson had continued to support the convicted sex-offender Jeffrey Epstein long after was deemed to be moral or wise. Leaving aside the Icarus myth that seems to be super-glued to Mandelson’s CV, we are left with the usual questions over the probity and integrity of individuals in government.
But they are not gods. You can get rid of them. They may be tragic heroes in myths; or may prevail in some epic saga. But gods, they are not. It is different in the Church of England (CofE). The leaders have no accountability, yet demand your fealty.
Stephen Parsons’ Surviving Church website often deals with leaders who have feet of clay, cult-like churches, cultures of obeisance and abuse, and terrifying stories of torment and anguish. So it will not surprise readers when I say that the hierarchy of the Church of England (CofE) act just like capricious Greek and Roman gods.
The gods of safeguarding are particularly fickle, vindictive and cruel, and if this were an ancient religion, they’d be venerated (or feared) for their evasiveness, spin and ambivalent relationship with truth. They would not be trusted, and could never be loved. But they demand that we take their word at face value.
Question their statements, and they’ll shun you. Persist with your questions, and they will go after you. The CofE’s Cult of Safeguarding, with its Guardian Bishops, NST, Officers, Acolyte Committees and devotees is a nasty, capricious vindictive affair. But if you don’t appease the Cult, woe betide you.
Many readers of this blog have followed the debacle with Kennedys LLP, the law firm instructed and contracted by the Archbishops’ Council to deliver a Redress Scheme to victims/survivors of abuse. The Germanic word ‘gift’ is a well-known example of a linguistic paradox, like ‘false friend’. A ‘gift’ can be both a blessing and a curse.
The Redress Scheme fits the bill precisely. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. Because it will not be what it seems. And so it has turned out. Kennedys appear to have been involved in previous litigation against – yes, against – victims and survivors likely to be eligible for the Redress Scheme. Did the CofE know this? Some of those pushing for Kennedys to run the non-independent scheme are likely to have known that, which raises questions as to why Kennedys were awarded the contract.
Mandelson, of course, was sacked for failing due diligence. But now we know Kennedys have acted against victims/survivors of church abuse, will the CofE act? Not likely. ‘Alea iacta est’ (the die is cast) with the CofE’s repeated re-abuse of the word ‘independent’. The gods of CofE safeguarding have their own definition of that word. It means ‘at arms-length’; some third-party conduit.
We know this because the CofE Redress Scheme Working Group is no longer operating, yet Kennedys Law LLP still require instruction and payment from their client in order to carry out their work, task and role. The client is most likely the Archbishops’ Council, which de facto means it will be William Nye as the Secretary to that body. If it were claimed General Synod is the client, William Nye is also the Secretary to that body. Many victims and survivors of abuse would not choose to place any matter of safeguarding redress in Mr. Nye’s hands. Ever. They do not trust him, and do not regard him as a person of honesty, probity or integrity. But he’s a god in the ancient Greek sense. You don’t cross him.
If Mr. Nye has now become, effectively by default, the senior party instructing Kennedys, that is a matter of grave concern to victims/survivors . It plainly casts considerable doubt on the possibility of this process being an ‘independent’ means of arbitrating and determining redress, as the CofE has wished to claim.
The CofE announced that it £150 million had been set aside for the Redress Scheme(https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/general-synod-approves-redress-scheme-survivors-church-related-abuse). However, we do not know how much of that £150 million will be claimed by Kennedys as part of their administration and legal fees. We do know, for a fact, that Kennedys indicated that the total amount was inadequate for the work envisaged. We also know that this was raised as an issue with the Archbishops’ Council. The gods waived this away.
Plainly, a major risk is that in the running of the Redress Scheme, the biggest beneficiary will be (drum roll)…Kennedys. For those who followed The Great British Post Office Scandal, one will recall that the first cases settled in 2017 amounted to £58 million. However, the claimants only received £12 million of that, with £46 million going to the lawyers in costs and legal fees.
In other words, victims of the Post Office injustices received just 21.4% of the amount awarded. Since there are several hundred victims of the CofE’s abuses, there is a significant risk that of the £150 million allocated, perhaps only 20% of that sum will be available to compensate survivors and those abused. [See the relevant article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal].
Without sight of the Terms of Reference under which Kennedys were appointed, clarity on who is now instructing them, and how compensation is to be apportioned from the £150 million, victims/survivors are at serious risk of (perhaps) having their cases heard; securing judgment in their favour; yet winning very, very little by way of redress/compensation. Just whatever is left after Kennedys have claimed their fees and expenses.
As the legislation to approve the Redress Scheme must go to Parliament, victims/survivors will be aware that another risk is that those who drafted the legislation – lawyers and legal officers working in Lambeth Palace and Church House Westminster – all reported directly to (drum roll)…William Nye.
If the legislation is to be approved by Parliament, then victims/survivors and MPs ought to have complete and unambiguous reassurance that no senior staff from the CofE will be involved in the interpretation of the legislation. Otherwise, that could be construed as an extremely serious conflict of interest.
It could effectively lead to a situation whereby the legislation approved by Parliament will be drafted by the very body that is responsible for the abuse of the victims. To put this in simple terms, imagine a scenario in which lawyers for the Post Office and Paula Vennels set out the terms for drafting the binding legislation and the total amount for compensating their victims. Just imagine.
Given the CofE’s repeated claim that Kennedys are delivering the Redress Scheme as an (allegedly) “independent body” victims/survivors, are now placed in an impossible position. Confidentiality with the NST, Archbishops’ Council and CofE has been wholly breached. But Kennedys, are now blocking communications with victims/survivors who question this. We also have strong reasons to believe that some victims of abuse have previously encountered Kennedys acting against them.
This suggests that impartiality has already been undermined in the Redress Scheme, if not fatally compromised. Correspondingly, full transparency is now essential. But these gods do not like to be questioned. In the CofE Cult of Safeguarding, with its Guardian Bishops, NST, Officers, Acolytes and devotees, all questions will be ignored, dissenters shunned, and complainants subjected to intense cruelty.
Remember when the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) was deemed by the Archbishops’ Council to be “too independent…and too survivor-focussed”, the ISB was sacked. Can the Archbishops’ Council sack Kennedys for the same reasons? Of course they can. So, will they sack Kennedys for the data-breach, or if it is found that they have previously acted against church victims/survivors? Probably not.
In all of this, the NST, desperate to keep control of their Cult and to appease their gods, will offer the usual crocodile tears and concern. The NST will never accept that they are a major cause and source of trauma for victims/survivors. Yet it would be astonishing if they didn’t know that. After all, it has been said often enough and repeatedly so by victims/survivors.
Meanwhile, the NST is offering (independent) “help and support” from somebody indirectly in their employ. Naturally, it must be somebody that the NST approves of and can rely upon for their purposes. The Cult will only use its own Guardians and High Priests that it can control. The NST will not pay contributions towards the ongoing therapy costs that victims/survivors might have already established outside the control of the Cult. The person chosen by the NST to deliver “help and support” is not regulated by an external professional body. So if that person fails any victim/survivor, there is nobody to complain to except (drum roll)…the Cult.
Does the person proposed by the NST have her own indemnity liability insurance in the event of causing further harm to a victim/survivor, or is the Archbishops’ Council covering this? The NST won’t say. The Cult has no need to answer such questions. Does the NST’s nominee have a relevant degree or accredited professional qualification in safeguarding or therapy? Perhaps an academic award such as a Masters or PgDip? How and by whom is their much-vaunted “experience” evaluated – and what are their qualifications and accreditation for doing so? The NST won’t say. The Cult has no need to answer such questions.
Why would any victim/survivor ever want to avail themselves of another of the NST’s unqualified, unlicensed and wholly unregulated staff? Especially as the CofE’s Cult of Safeguarding operations are unquestionably a major cause of the harm and the trauma that victims/survivors experience?
Can the NST not see how inappropriate and abusive it is to compound their damage by offering to make it right? Is the position of the CofE that the best people to help survivors/victims are their actual abusers? Is this “safeguarding”?
There are no answers to any of this, because the CofE hierarchy with its Safeguarding Cult all acts “as though they were gods”. That’s why the major common denominator for victims/survivors is this: they’ve all left the CofE. This Cult is abusive, and its gods are capricious and cruel. Escape is the only safe option.
Nails it, doesn’t it? I quible with one point:
“But the [government] are not gods. You can get rid of them. They may be tragic heroes in myths; or may prevail in some epic saga. But gods, they are not. It is different in the Church of England (CofE). The leaders have no accountability, yet demand your fealty.”
That is all true. But you cannot be rid of CofE leaders, or poor, compromised and even corrupt officers in safeguarding. They are as gods, and they do as they please to whomsoever they wish, and blank those that are too much effort. They will punish dissent. Thank you for highlighting the identity of this cult. CofE safeguarding is just as harmful as that which it proposes to cure. A truly noxious pantheon of gods, acolytes and devotees.
The comparison of senior C of E people, ordained and lay, to capricious Greek gods ex very apt. If I may extend the analogy, those who give their allegiance to such a system may be deemed guilty of idolatry. These ‘gods’ are false gods. The real God demands truth and justice – including justice for the most vulnerable and those of least account.
ARCHBISHOP JOHN MCDOWELL is Primate of Ireland’s Anglican Church. The content above resonates with me. Our Irish Primate has failed to formally investigate BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment). He has steadfastly declined my recent requests to meet him. I want to share information about sinister BAH cover up in D&D Diocese (Diocese of Down and Dromore) led by Bishop David McClay.
I am a retired NHS worker and serve latterly as medical member on judicial panels. A clear trail of evidence points to sinister cover ups of child and adult maltreatment. But the Archbishop steadfastly refuses to meet me and hear my evidence. A Belfast law firm KRWLAW posted: ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores Belfast-Tipperary transfer’.
Archbishop John McDowell’s elevation to Irish Primate saw an article in Irish Times (‘New Primate’, 27 April 2020) with this line: ‘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’.
I have asked the Primate to clarify if this ‘Canon Billy Neely’ is the same person as the late ‘Canon William Neely’ (as referenced in the KRWLAW statement). I was stunned, in the context of my NHS medical employment, years before the Primate’s 2020 enthronement, when an informant confidentially described the Neely scandal at Mt Merrion in precise detail (years before the courts or media uncovered it).
I was sceptical or dismissive. But the informant described it as common knowledge how a child abuser priest at Mt Merrion was shifted and protected in the 1970’s. Why can Archbishop McDowell not do the decent thing, and confess how the Church of Ireland cynically covered up violent child maltreatment for almost half a century, even after one (now deceased victim) received £100K according to local media reports?
Archbishop John McDowell’s approach is hard to reconcile with the sentiments of Our Lord: “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”.
An ordinary boy like Pilavachi may only affirm the showman class by being promoted into it. Combine the influencer model of evangelicalism with the mannerisms of Bishop Ball and it looks rather like “we want your boys” either way. They despised Lloyd-Jones who though “middle class” in terms of his original neighbourhood and, annoyingly, gained a pass out of simple professional standards, as I have now found out remained an ordinary man.
I remember when a friend together with her good vicar almost made my family low-key C of E. Churches evangelised by just being normal, most radio religion was matins in four voices, and all denominations / styles / streams promoted the same beliefs as far as it mattered. To be fair to John Wimber, he did break with Peter Wagner the now favoured hegemonist. The effect of age silos is that all those bright young 50-somethings who neglect liberal arts (while pretending not to) don’t know what obscure folks like us know from sheer thinking about it, even though they were closer to the scene.
The Church of England exhibits cruelty without a conscience, which is the hallmark of the most evil of men. I don’t see a loving God in any of these people, whether they are local clergy or sitting in Moses’ seat. As a victim of abuse, I see a God who is cruel and indifferent, mirrored in the leadership that he continues to pick to lead his Church.
For Anglicans, this isn’t just about avoiding consequences, although that’s perfectly acceptable from the point of the ‘vicarious redemption’ view of their faith. They give themselves the ability to reverse reality itself, which gives them a God-like power, resulting in cruelty without a conscience.
They reverse reality by taking justice and turning it inside out. Anglicans believe in anti-justice, not justice. When an abusing member of the clergy harms their victim and anti-justice occurs — meaning the victim seeks help but the abuser is validated instead — it becomes the ultimate triumph for the member of the clergy and their supporters. This is their God-like power.
The Anglican Church, leadership and supporters in the pews, take pleasure in seeing injustice prevail because it confirms their belief that they can manipulate people, systems, and truth to their advantage. Even the word of their God is twisted to meet their ends. They escape accountability, reinforce their false image, and watch the victim suffer even more from betrayal and invalidation from some Olympian pool. They use the ‘Just World’ fallacy to punish victims further; if we were ‘good’ Christians who forgave, then we would heal. If we were ‘good’ Christians, then we wouldn’t be tempting and delectable to clergy. A Christian told me that I should ‘move along the pew’ if a Reverend pinched my bottom in Church – I mean, seriously, WTF kind of advice is that from a church that is supposed to be all about SAFEGUARDING? Tell victims to move along the PEW?
Stay away from Anglican clergy. It attracts the weakest of men with a thirst for lust, perversion and power. They respect their pulpits and altars so little, and their congregation even less, and women even less so.
Pascal allegedly wrote: “Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction”. But another question crops up: did Jesus come to fulfil or to do away with human religion? With quite a lot of what we see the Anglican Church leadership get up to (and cover up) you may well ask if that’s the type of ‘false human religion’ Our Lord came to eliminate and replace.
Look across the UK and Ireland. Welby gone! Andrew John gone! Scottish Episcopal Church’s Primate, Mark Strange, is in trouble with the Bishop Dyer case. John McDowell, Irish Anglican Primate, has left many scandals unaddressed in Down and Dromore Diocese, where an absence of godly leadership has seen sinister child and adult maltreatment get hidden. The Venessa Pinto scandal, in Leciester Diocese, has seen off a one time hot contender to be next Archbishop of Canterbury. Our Bishops and Archbishops reap what they sow, and the collapse of the Anglican Church in the UK and Ireland is no accident.
I’m disappointed to see such scaremongering and inaccuracies about the Redress Scheme on this site, which has the best interests of survivors at heart.
As a member of the survivor Redress working group, I was gutted by the breach and the damage caused to trust in the scheme. Its natural that we all want reassurance now that the scheme is independent.
Many of the facts about that can be found on the Redress FAQs page https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/redress-scheme/redress-faqs#na and in all the other updates about the scheme there and in Synod records.
These address the unfounded claim that most of the money goes to Kennedys. The 150 million is what has been committed initially, but not ruling out further contribution if needed, as it’s not known how many victims will apply.
The legislation for the scheme has been scrutinised and approved by General Synod.
The NST continues to be responsible for contract management; it would be negligent of the church not to do due diligence on how it’s money is spent and whether it’s helping victims & survivors as intended. As has been announced, a new ongoing governance board with survivor representation is being set up.
The principles of scheme design were the responsibility of the previous Board and were approved by Synod. The decisions about individual applications and awards will be made by the scheme administrators entirely independent if the church. Again this fact and available details of appeals, non-financial Redress etc are all in the public domain.
The breach should not have happened and has had a horrible impact. Kennedys have taken full responsibility and have been working with their team and the church to ensure it cannot happen again and offer support to those impacted. I agree this support must be adequate and person-centred and would like to hear what additional support people would like to have available.
Any further delays to the scheme at this point would cause a lot of further distress to survivors who have been waiting so long already. I hope readers will look at the facts and resist any suggestions to delay the scheme or ask parliament to do so.
This scheme isn’t perfect, not sure that is possible, but it will offer financial redress, apology, therapy and other bespoke redress to many CofE survivors. Sabotaging the scheme at this stage is certainly not in the best interests of survivors.
I should make it clear this is my personal opinion. I’m not writing on behalf of any group or other people.
Hi Jane,
I am commenting as an interested observer.
I think you have a massive conflict of interest and your comment was unwise defensive of the Church and does not take into account the many excellent observations that anon has put forward.
Evidence across the globe from Australia NZ USA Canada Europe on faith communities internal redress schemes show significant failures , massive increased harm to survivors and families and a lack of independence and accountability.
Without robust civil law changes within the UK an independent redress scheme linked to Government and proper civil law changes than survivors and families will not receive justice.
We know the institutions are motivated only by damage protection of reputational and other assets rather than having the best interests of survivors at heart.
Some survivors like yourself have attempted to become advisors or allies to assist the institutions in their redress responses. Worldwide experience has shown that the vast majority of survivors do not support these initiatives due to the inherent power imbalances and glaring conflicts of interest. Although some of us have had token responses by institutions attempting to co opt us onto their advisory boards for PR and other often obscure reasons .
Without fully independent safeguarding and redress this current system is doomed .
I highly recommend you both remove your comment stand down from any role in supporting this blatantly failed experiment and urge the CofE to hand over all safeguarding to an independent government legislated entity as recommended by the Jay report.
In the next few years we will see increased harm to survivors and families if this failed cobbled together internal scheme is allowed to be the Trojan horse that allows the CofE to avoid its responsibilities.
A legal firm linked with defending the churches interests and taking often hard ball legal action against claimants then purporting to be independent of the Church in administering this failed dogs breakfast of a scheme is both absurd and typical of the lack of duty of care that your institution is renowned for.
I know many survivors and our families across the Anglican Communion globally would be disappointed with your defence of this failed system.
It is also disingenuous to state this is your personal opinion while sitting on internal advisory boards. It’s a matter of perception as well as a typical example of a confused conflict of interest.
I know you do fantastic work in advocacy in this space but this post could do that advocacies reputation irreparable damage.
Perhaps you could gracefully remove or amend your comment.
Kind regards Richie.
Spot on Richie
I spent a tiny bit of time in a c of e survivor space and the blurred boundaries quite literally made me vomit.
I remember one particularly hideous video with Welby and other senior figures saying sorry then looking at a horizon then a pan out to the horizon whilst soft sad music played.
It absolutely incensed me.
It was like oh no this is so awful a thing to have happened, followed by zero accountability / follow up / reporting and dealing with perpetrators as if the abuse just fell out of the sky and no one could do anything about it.
It was like 3 or 5 years ago I was in that group and I still remember how mad that vid made me!
apologists for the evil behaviours of this institution just make survivors even mafder
Thank you for responding, Richie.
Of course many survivors want nothing to do with the institution that harmed them and I totally understand that.
However many of us want to see the institution change and become safer, not accountable and respond better to victims.
I believe that change must be informed by the experiences, wishes and feelings of victims and that we are vital to achieving the change necessary. I advocate for our voices to be heard and I take part as an independent ‘lived experience expert’ in initiatives like the Redress Scheme for that reason. ‘Nothing about us without us’ as the saying goes.
It’s not ‘my’ institution – I’m not a member of the CofE – but for all kinds of reasons, principally related to my faith and my own experience of abuse – I want to see it reform and I want to play my small part in making that happen.
I don’t see that advocating with survivors to change things for the benefit of survivors is any conflict of interest.
As for the Redress Scheme, my post is simply addressing some misinformation and asking readers to assess the facts in the public domain and judge for themselves. The detail is in the legislation passed by Synod and on the Redress FAQ page.
I agree with @HouseofSurvivors that this is urgent and we should work with Kennedys to get the scheme implemented asap, not call for a new administrator.
As for a government Redress scheme, that’s not even on the government agenda, never mind in the horizon. I want survivors to be able to access Redress soon, rather than rely on some possibility years away that may never even happen.
The CofE Redress Scheme is a reality and can move towards opening as soon as government passes the legislation. There’s still work to do on the detail and I am pleased that survivors will continue to be involved in that.
Once it opens people are if course free to apply or not as they decide. There was a time when someone in the church offered me money to stay quiet and I threw it back in their face. But like civil claims, I see Redress as just compensation for what we have suffered, and the means to make our lives a little better. Others are entitled and free to feel differently.
What does matter to me is that survivors have a choice. By all means reject the scheme for yourself if you wish. But don’t deprived other survivors of something they want, need and deserve.
As for stating this is my view, I was just making it clear that I am not speaking on behalf of anyone else. I think clarity about this is important, because as a victim people have often claimed to speak for me when they don’t allow me a voice, and I don’t want to appear to speak for others when I don’t. I hope you can appreciate that.
https://www.kennedyslaw.com/en/notices/kennedys-data-breach/
(This is apparently public?) – when attention to vital spiritual right (which would come from a real God) is accorded low administrative ranking, some other variation of the scenario is sure to ensue. Was Britain so well nourished by the Full Gospel of J Stott and J Packer that we are now down to the redress for the redress?
Ah Jennifer, pain resonates through this piece. I can feel it.
I don’t disagree with a lot of what you say, particularly around the treatment of women.
One thing that stood out: do you think God picks these people to lead church?
I don’t have many answers around this, also having experienced abuse from some leaders, and kindness from others
For myself I still believe God is love. And where there is love there is God
Sometimes I find God in many places outside of church
And sometimes where there are church leaders with no love there God is not / I do not find God
What’s going on with abusive behaviour by church leadership I really don’t know… Because surely those assessed as being “called” SHOULD be bringing kindness and healing, not perpetrating the worst kinds of harms.
So if their behaviour is abuse I personally don’t believe it comes from God
Who has sanctified these “callings”? Predominantly an old Etonian network of white cis male power. Never the most astute at recognising safeguarding red flags
I don’t necessarily think that the monolithic church structures we have now are remotely close to what Jesus envisaged as church
Much in our world is in collapse. If we can salvage as much diversity of life on earth and earth itself, share out resources equally and learn to live well within it’s limits we may avert the worst kinds of climate change
I don’t see that the old church institutions of empire can survive in the new world that’s needed. Faith will. But not these giants of oppression and pain
I hope some things bring you hope
For myself I just aim for as much post traumatic growth as I am capable of, and the courage to whistle blow to protect others
Solidarity x
It was interesting how UK death certification changed post-Shipman. The old way, of local solicitors being involved, was replaced by something distant and independent. Bishops, all too often, can be inclined to protect colleagues or chums. Independent safeguarding is now an Anglican necessity, not an aspirational luxury for distant times.