by Ruth Grayson
I sometimes wonder if the Church has lost its sense of priorities.
Some time ago, we wanted to attend a service of dedication for a well dressing in a nearby Derbyshire village. But the relevant parish website contained no information about any services, even regular Sunday ones. Nor were there any contact details for a local vicar. The only telephone number listed was that of the safeguarding officer.
Another time, I was taken aback by the message in an ‘out of office’ autoreply from the chaplain of a Christian centre. This stated that while no one would be available to answer emails until the following Monday, I should ring an alternative number if I had a safeguarding concern. No matter if I had another pastoral issue, a health or relational crisis, or indeed if I was feeling suicidal. Any problem not relating to safeguarding could evidently wait a few more days.
I doubt if either of these experiences is unusual. Most church websites now have a page dedicated to their particular safeguarding policies. In some cases, as in that of the parish church mentioned above, contact details for a safeguarding officer are more prominently displayed than those for a vicar, minister or pastor. It can easier to find safeguarding information than details of services, other church activities, or indeed any statement about the church’s purpose and mission. References to safeguarding exponentially outnumber references to God in many if not most websites.
If this is not enough, to reinforce their commitment to safeguarding, churches also seek to reassure themselves that those wishing to serve it in any way should undergo safeguarding training. This can apply even to support functions, such as arranging flowers, making coffee, singing in entirely adult choirs, reading a lesson or leading intercessions, as well as to the more obvious leadership roles involving regular contact with vulnerable people such as children and the elderly. While I can see the point of screening and training courses for those engaged in these roles as well as in any pastoral or one-on-one activities, I fail to see their relevance in many other cases. I am not the first to baulk at this. In 2010, a group of flower-arranging ladies in Gloucester cathedral made national headlines by resigning en masse in protest at the sacking of one of their number for refusing to undergo a [then] CRB check.
The following communication from a church office was sent to members of its adult choir: …we are very concerned to do everything to make our church as safe for everyone to attend as we can. We are also concerned that everyone who takes on a role is suitably resourced. Moreover, following the various high profile cases against some who have been in positions of authority and trust in the church yet used this as a vehicle to abuse, the Church of England is committed to changing the culture of the whole church to one of honesty and openness, where no would be abuser has a place to hide and where everyone, child or adult, can feel safe. One of the ways they are attempting this is to ensure that everyone who has a role in the church undertakes safeguarding training to an appropriate level and that this is renewed every three years.
For your role/s of Singer [in the choir] you are required to complete the following training Safeguarding Basic Awareness (C0).
This email resulted in one choir member promptly leaving the group. One outcome of this ‘surfeit of safeguarding’ is that churches are losing some of their existing volunteers and are failing to recruit others. But there is another development that is equally worrying. It may be fostering an atmosphere of distrust in the church – the very opposite of what it is intended to do, and the very opposite of what a church stands for.
A notorious example of this is the now discredited case against the late Bishop George Bell of Chichester. A major factor in this case was almost certainly the context of the times as well as of its location. The diocese of Chichester did, sadly, have a very bad reputation with regard to genuine cases of child sexual abuse, and it had been the subject of a number of investigations and official reviews for some time. To this background must be added the growing awareness of abuse in society at large, brought about by the Soham murders at the beginning of the 21st century and the subsequent introduction of CRB and later DBS checks in many public and private organisations.
Another factor in the Bell case must be the fallout from the Jimmy Savile case that resulted in the growth in the #MeToo movement. That not all allegations were genuine was highlighted by the outcomes of such high profile investigations as Operation Yewtree in the 2012-13 and the Henriques report following Operation Midland in 2019. Meanwhile, an inordinate amount of damage was done to individual reputations and the lives and careers of those concerned as well as to their families. One victim was (Lord) Leon Brittan, who died without ever knowing that his name had been cleared. And a number of priests and vicars have lost their jobs and not been reinstated despite having been cleared of any wrongdoing. At least one such person has committed suicide. Such is the effect of public opinion, however wrongly informed.
In the case of George Bell, the knee-jerk reaction by the archiepiscopal and diocesan authorities to the posthumous allegation of abuse 60 years after his death is perhaps a classic example of the febrile atmosphere caused by such trends and the overkill in their response. This is explored more fully in a newly published book on the case https://www.ekklesiapublishing.co.uk/books/presumption-of-guilt/. While by no means the sole factor, overzealous safeguarding concerns almost certainly played a part in the way the diocesan core group handled the allegation. This can, as in the Bell case, lead to an immediate presumption that the person named in the complaint is guilty; and because of the Church’s reluctance to adhere to independent procedures for investigation and assessment it quickly results in a slur on, if not the actual ruination of, that person’s reputation, regardless of the eventual outcome.
The need for independent oversight of church safeguarding was highlighted in the recent IICSA report but has yet to be implemented. Currently the Church is acting as both judge and jury in such cases, and is completely ignoring the basic principle of the legal system in this country: that of the presumption of innocence. In general, too, a DBS check means that an individual must prove innocence, whereas in law it is for the prosecution to prove guilt. And of course such a check is only as good as the day on which it is done.
This raises one final question. What evidence exists to show that all these checks, courses and safeguarding measures are helping to reduce abuse throughout the Church? Indeed, how could this be measured? The number of cases reported in the press does not seem to have diminished in recent years, as manifested by examples highlighted by the Soul Survivor and Nine o’Clock scandals and the cover-ups at a very senior clerical level noted in the Makin report.
Moreover, the costs involved in implementing the current approach are clearly substantial. All 42 dioceses of the C of E in England must have a safeguarding officer on their staff, sometimes supported by one or more administrators; backed by a National Safeguarding Team to produce training materials and courses. Meanwhile, my own experience would indicate that more people may be put off any kind of church work under the present system than are caught committing any form of abuse. And it is certainly well known that abusers are adept at operating ‘under the radar’ and may escape detection for many years, if not for life, whatever precautions may be taken to try to stop them.
None of this is to say that the Church does not need to have safeguarding practices. It most certainly does, and they have been too long in coming. But the system at present is akin to taking a sledghammer to crack a nut, and the nuts that are being cracked are not the right ones. Ultimately, safeguarding is the responsibility of the state, and the Church needs to acknowledge this. The George Bell case was referred to the police not once, but twice, and thrown out not once, but twice. It took two independent reviews and considerable expense before it grudgingly admitted its error in taking the law into its own hands.
Safeguarding should be seen as one aspect of the Church’s core function of ‘bringing good news to the poor’, not as a mission in itself. A good place to start would be by working with the law to uphold the presumption of innocence, which passing names to the vicar or safeguarding officer of any local church completely undermines. And within an individual church, it means subsuming safeguarding policies under a more general heading of pastoral care than is currently the case in too many instances. A better sense of its priorities might thereby be regained.
Ruth Grayson
Excellent article, Stephen. It seems obvious to state the following facts, but here are my observations and conclusions from your piece:
1. The CofE Safeguarding staff have no accountability to anyone, and are not subject to any regulatory body to which one can appeal. So they can make whatever demands they want, and if you object to their dictats on legal or natural justice grounds, your only option is to resign from your role in the church. Increasingly that’s what the volunteers, flower ladies and retired clergy do. They quit. You can’t blame them.
2. CofE safeguarding is a racket, and designed for reputational washing. All incompetence and corruption is covered up. There is a lot of it. CofE safeguarding is unsafe and incoherent, and anyone sensible would run a mile from it.
3. The CofE is now being run by unaccountable and incompetent bureaucrats who answer to no one. They will eventually regulate the CofE out of existence without themselves ever being regulated. Lots of volunteers are leaving. But the bureaucracy runs the CofE so this is not on any agenda. Your absence will not be noted.
When there is nothing and no one left to safeguard the CofE bureaucracy will have finally triumphed.
Amen.
Before I retired it was a disciplinary offence not to have safeguarding information displayed on the church web site.
BLASPHEMY?-I jest not! Is this what underlies so many Anglican Church problems, with this including my own Church of Ireland tradition?
I was a GP and hospital medic between 1989-2017. Post-retirement I have done some part-time medico-legal work. Sad individual episodes of BAH-KCJ-NDA-DARVO could fill many telephone directories.
But the Torah states: ‘One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offence they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses’.
Countless innocent victims of ‘bullying-abuse-harassment’ have been stitched up by ‘kangaroo-court-justice’ in churches. ‘Non-disclosure-agreement’ has often covered this up. ‘Deny-attack-reverse-victim+offender’ has been a result.
It is beneficial for the raw simplicity of Anglican bullying-abuse-harassment concealment to be understood in these terms. The cover up of BAH is by no means confined to the Church of England. I wonder if the lead Anglican Archbishop in Ireland needs to resign.
There is a sinister cover up of child abuse for almost 50 years. A Belfast Human Rights specialist law form have this online post: ‘Neely abuse: Church of Ireland Bishop ‘apologises’ for unnamed rector – ignores Belfast-Tipperary transfer’.
Archbishop John McDowell has also failed to launch an inquiry into modern bullying-abuse-harassment concealment in the same Diocese. A professor and a senior teacher were alarmed when 2 out of 5 students in a single New Wine course 2015-2016 year group in Belfast faced savage and unfair accusations of sexual misconduct.
Church members question if the Anglican House of Bishops in Ireland are covering up some kind of sinister savagery at Belfast’s St Brendan’s Church. Olive Tree Media posted this online YouTube film 30.1.22: ‘Karl Faase interviews Joe Turner for Jesus the Game Changer’.
But Olive Tree Media appear not to be based in the UK. When looking at St Brendan’s Church of Ireland website and Facebook pages, had Joe Turner vanished long before 30.1.22? Locals advise me how they believe some serious adverse incident is being cynically covered up.
How many Irish Anglican trainees need to go missing before Archbishop John McDowell admits that savage bullying is being covered up in the Down and Dromore Diocese? Will it take a death, a suicide, exposure of child abuse, or exposure of rape, before Archbishop John McDowell wakes up and fixes up a judge-led or barrister-led independent inquiry?
Deuteronomy states: ‘One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses’.
The scale of abuse-bullying-harassment in the Belfast centred Down and Dromore Diocese extends far beyond-‘2 or 3’-witnesses. Should Archbishop John McDowell resign if he continues to deny a very plain need for an independent inquiry into sinister concealment of bullying-abuse-harassment by Bishop David McClay?
James ,
I really appreciate your comments and honest open strength and determination in exposing safeguarding failures.
Your advocacy on SC is resilient and inspiring.
Only by multiple voices from across the UK ,and Republuc of Ireland and Internationally can we together begin to make change.
Yes, I think ordinary Anglicans and everyday clergy need to red-flag concern when they see BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment).
It has yet to be acknowledged the Bishop Ball case is on of the greatest miscarriages of justice in church history
Correction: Bishop Bell case
I must not be flippant about such a serious subject, but it is amazing what a difference a single vowel makes to an important statement.
I must not be flippant about such a serious subject, but it is amazing what a difference a single vowel makes to an important statement.
Last week, being National Bishop’s Backside Protecting Week, I was sent a ‘safeguarding’ quiz by my diocese. Why I got it, and no one else at my church appears to have done, I don’t know, but anyway. One of the questions it asked was ‘Do you feel safe at your church?’ The short answer is “If I didn’t feel safe, I wouldn’t go.”
The worst example of abuse – and ultimately failure of the disciplinary system – I’ve personally been involved with was a sociopathic parson who emotionally and spiritually abused his curate, treating her and her husband as his personal property. In the end he was ‘disciplined’ by the bishop – by being promoted and moved to another diocese, where it seems he got into further trouble.
Is it any wonder I (and I suspect many more people) have neither time nor respect for the ‘authority’ of the CofE?
Essentially its nothing but window dressing – the corruption is the elephant in the room, which the ‘top people’ don’t want to see.
The bishop’s quiz asked me for comments. It got them…..
I don’t feel in the CofE. The safeguarding is dangerous, manipulative and easily weaponised. I no longer attend and would freely counsel others to give it a wide berth. I no longer donate to the CofE. This will only change when the corruption and incompetence in safeguarding can be handled by a genuinely independent body with clout/teeth.
I don’t safe feel in the CofE. The safeguarding is dangerous, manipulative and easily weaponised. I no longer attend and would freely counsel others to give it a wide berth. I no longer donate to the CofE. This will only change when the corruption and incompetence in safeguarding can be handled by a genuinely independent body with clout/teeth.
You are doing the right thing. People need to stay away from the Church of England. The ‘Quiet Revival’ is perhaps partly due to weak safeguarding, which will attract abusers. It is also partly due to identity as Tommy Robinson’s supporters start to fill pews. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4p42kydx9o
When the Church is filled with abusers and far-right with no protection for anyone else, then there is even less hope for its future than there is at present. Their prioritisation of ‘cheap forgiveness’ is at the expense of love for their victims.
It is a hospital where nobody is healed. Abusers only receive validation for their behaviour and attitudes. ‘Listening’ is all they ever do.
Safeguarding training is simply a bauble. In the past couple of years, I know of one Vicar who didn’t report repeated instances of sexual abuse in his Parish to the Police, alleged to have been committed by a retired Reverend. The incumbent Vicar deemed that forgiveness and repentance were enough and no further action was required. Victims left the Church, damaged beyond repair.
On paper, both Reverends have their DBS checks and all safeguarding training. The reality is: one will abuse, and the other will continue to let him. It undermines faith in the Parish that forgiveness and repentance are not enough to stop Reverends from abusing. They are also not enough to convince men that they should follow guidelines given in safeguarding training. Instead, they believe they are holy and will dispense forgiveness.
Safeguarding training is worth nothing if people will collect their ‘Certificate of Completion’ for doing the training, but then fail to report abuse when it happens. In the CofE, there is a fixation on ‘forgive and forget’ which ignores sexual abuse of women and girls. The Church will continue efforts to avoid doing something about abuse while prioritising the protection of its reputation.
You can lead a horse to a proverbial trough, but you can’t force it to drink; you can compel a church official to complete safeguarding training, but you can’t force them to understand and adopt its lessons. Sadly, this is true of all teaching – but it doesn’t mean that you should not put water in the trough, and it doesn’t mean that you should backtrack on safeguarding training. I can easily agree that flower arrangers are a lower risk than clergy (or pastoral teams), but the problem in Anon’s case is not in the training, but in a corrupt culture of looking after colleagues and reputation rather than victims – but how can that be reversed other than by training?
‘-One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offence they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses-‘.
This is the biblical standard-evidence being independently allowed to speak for itself.
The words from Deuteronomy 19 are the real solution to our Anglican crisis. Flow charts, systems and teams of safeguarding people at bishops’ feet are irrelevant, if this central plank of justice is being repeatedly ignored. Let me illustrate.
Three of us witnessed a grown man broken and in tears. He left a meeting with a New Wine tutor and was inconsolable for a prolonged time afterwards. The student’s mental state was quite spectacular. Within weeks two of the three witnesses had good reason to also feel unfairly accused of sexual misconduct in a similarly vulgar manner by the same New Wine tutor.
But Anglican Bishops and Archbishops failed to fix any formal and independent inquiry. No amount of training programmes can ever reverse the impact of senior leaders who blasphemously disregard the most fundamental principles of natural justice spelt out in the bible.
Anglican Bishops and Archbishops have betrayed our Church by repeatedly disregarding the most essential or fundamental principles of natural justice. Look at all the various scandals where streams of whistleblowers-witnesses-victims were ignored: “That’s just Mike”.
Does our denomination need to urgently delegate bullying-abuse-harassment inquiry issues to independent teams of professionally qualified panel members, such as routinely happens across society in various equivalent circumstances?
The Church of England do not address the root of the issues over the failure to apply safeguarding training in practice. Christian teachings on forgiveness lead to an insistence that victims should overlook, ignore, or minimise abuse for the sake of Christian love, an approach that is spiritually toxic and can retraumatise those harmed.
Christian leaders, like all humans, are susceptible to sin and weakness. The New Testament urges compassion, patience, and restoration rather than harsh judgment when leaders fail (Galatians 6:1, James 5:19-20). Grace reflects the belief that no one is beyond redemption or repair, but this generosity is applied to abusers and not victims.
In the Anglican view of safeguarding, Christian love demands silence about wrongdoing and the return to unsafe relationships. Abusers and victims should be able to sit side-by-side in pews, in their view, or the victim has not forgiven and is therefore not a Christian. Abusers and some religious leaders may weaponise the Bible and Church teachings. They will victims it is sinful to “keep bringing up the past,” which can be used to dismiss concerns and add guilt, preventing accountability and boundaries.
Anglicans have rejected the Roman Catholic division of sin into “mortal” and “venial”; their own formularies state that “every sin deserves damnation.” Hence, sexual, emotional, physical and spiritual abuse is no different than any other sin. In the Anglican view, it is victims who are unchristian because they do not forgive. The verse “love keeps no record of wrongs” (1 Cor 13:5) is used to tell victims to “forgive and forget”, implying that ongoing abuse must be tolerated for the sake of love.
The Church of England does not acknowledge that the Christian faith itself provides support for abusers. Anglicans use biblical arguments for unconditional forgiveness (Matt 18) and “keeping no record of wrongs” are frequently applied, leading to spiritual pressure that protects abusers and harms victims. Anglicans ignore broader biblical call for justice, repentance, and safeguarding the vulnerable.
You can give people many safeguarding trainings and DBS checks. It is key to their faith that they will not report abuse or prevent it. They will ignore safeguarding in practice, contributing to harmful patterns of response from a victim perspective. They treat abusers as ‘them over there’ and do not recognise that the abusers are Reverends AND Christians AND abusers.
Christians sometimes say “leave it all to God” in response to ongoing abuse because of deeply held beliefs in God’s ultimate justice, mercy, and sovereignty. They trust that God will eventually right wrongs perfectly, even if human systems fail or justice seems delayed. This perspective is rooted in scriptures that affirm God is the final judge who will bring true justice and punishment to evildoers in His timing, encouraging believers to avoid vengeance themselves (Romans 12:19). enable abuse by encouraging passivity or inaction. Some may believe that intervening or seeking secular justice shows a lack of faith or that enduring suffering is a form of spiritual endurance or sanctification (James 1:2-4). Others may fear that taking action signals distrust in God’s plan or undermines the spiritual authority of abusers or leaders. These views are unified by “God wiping away every tear”, leading to the view that it does not matter what they do in this life because Jesus paid for their sin.
Safeguarding training does not get to the heart of the issue, which is the Bible teaching itself. It is seen as a failure of faith to intervene when they should ‘leave it all to God’. Suffering is often viewed as a consequence of a fallen world marred by sin and human free will, diverting responsibility and accountability from the abusers and their choices to abuse.
Thanks Anon,
This religious conditioning leads to spiritual abuse.
Naming and reframing this scriptural propoganda and false and misleading literalist interpretation of biblical ethics has lead so many into criminality and cover up. Even Royal Commissions and secular and state enquiries do not usually dive deeply into the ways the NT and OT are used to justify protection denial silence and secrecy.
Was it not `Dietrich Boenhoffer who said “ forgiveness without justice is cheap grace”
The Church of England believes it can “drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too.” (1 Cor 10:21). The Church of England could fund PhD programs to explore faith and abuse, but it wastes money on safeguarding trainings that very few will follow when issues arise.
The Church of England will use Jesus’ words and Bible verses to exclude victims on the basis that they do not forgive and they have unrepentant spirits. They may even believe that victims are possessed by demons, and, as such, are the pagans.
You would be excused for thinking that Bible verses would be used to correct abusers, but they are used to destroy victims. The Hebrews writer warns of fearful judgment for those who trample on Christ by ongoing deliberate sin, stressing that God’s grace does not cover unrepentant abuse or hypocrisy (Hebrews 10:26-31). Those who persist in evil cannot genuinely participate in communion with God, so they work to exclude victims rather than abusers.
Jesus instructs that persistent, unrepentant wrongdoers, even after church discipline, may be treated “as a pagan or tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). Instead of correcting abusers, they punish victims who become scapegoats (Leviticus) for the sins of the abusers.
The Church of England has its own topsy turvy ideas about what justice is and what it means. For Anglicans, justice is not transforming lives and protecting the vulnerable. It sees justice as deferred while enabling or hiding abusive patterns. Vicars will stand next to their pulpits and assert their God does not refuse anyone to come to his altar. Simultaneously they will cheerfully use the Bible and grace as an excuse to support abusers while silencing or excluding victims.
When victims speak out, they are cast as unforgiving and unrepentant stone throwers who attack Christians for their faith. Victims are given no grace at all.
The Church of England crowd will piously cast victims’ anger as an attack on their faith. Their faith masquerades as love, but its ‘cheap forgiveness’ perpetuates abuse and causes great harm and deserves every criticism. Anglicans have judged, by default, that the victims are condemned and treat them as such.
It is down to your conscience to decide what is right. The Church of England isn’t going to change its mind about safeguarding victims. Jesus condemns religious leaders who neglect justice while maintaining privileges (Matthew 23:23). Safeguarding training is a mirage at best, but they are not serious about it, it’s just something to keep people quiet and happy to stem the complaints until they believe it’s all forgotten.
Abuse victims can be compared to the scapegoats in Leviticus 16 because, like the scapegoat, they often bear the burdens and sins of others unjustly, being blamed, excluded, and punished for problems they did not cause. In Leviticus 16, the scapegoat was ceremonially loaded with the sins and iniquities of the community and sent away into the wilderness, symbolically carrying guilt and blame away from the people. This innocent animal took on the community’s darkness and was expelled to restore communal purity. The scapegoat was not guilty but marked and forced to go into isolation, paralleling how abuse victims are often marginalised, silenced, or pushed out within communities or churches while the true perpetrators remain unchallenged.
Abuse victims resemble the scapegoats of Leviticus by being unjustly burdened with blame and excluded, reflecting a tragic misuse of scapegoating dynamics. Simultaneously, the Church of England play fast and loose with safeguarding initiatives.
Safeguarding training tickles the underlying problems but doesn’t tackle them – because it is core to their faith that victims need to ‘forgive and forget’ or literally go to Hell. Abuse victims, like scapegoats, call the community to reckon honestly with injustice rather than repeat cycles of blame and exclusion while the Church of England pretends to proclaim that Jesus is the victim, the true scapegoat.
quo Look at all the various scandals where streams of whistleblowers-witnesses-victims were ignored: “That’s just Mike”. unq
Enforced lack of attention to detail resulted from the last 35 years of triumphalising ear blasting brain deadening chaotic dynamics, politicised dumbing down, and spiritual sabotage of church services, home groups, relationships, Bible meanings etc.
This can also take “subtle” forms such as the weekday “eucharist” in a tight circle where one gets stared blankly at, if trying to negotiate to sit out of both “eucharist” and any compulsory substitute (such as wobbly laying on of officious hands).
Ecclesial adhocracy operatives think that what they were brought up in, is the only existible form of faith in Christ. Do core group insiders receive rigorous certifying in an objective Royal Chartered Institute of Core Group Operatives? “Brain dumps” is a transparent phrase indeed.
No matter what the churchmanship and applying just as much to the so called “Inclusive”, the ideology is that one can’t escape the narrowing of thought and existence. Now that all theology (except in rare genuinely and not fake, “conservative” backwaters) is so anti-human, we need a new “industry” of commonsensical “theology safeguarding”.
I used to think church was a place where you could just go and hear daily matins and evensong, and arrange relating at own discretion (so that no-one can claim the vicar’s backing) . If you don’t like whose home you are invited to or who is visiting you, talk about them – to everybody, including outside the church. When I was in what has become (part of) the newfangled demographic, we didn’t need “sacred clubs”.
We do not really know how much things have changed – although we have current reports of past cases, these are past and are evidence of what happened then. We do see a pattern of saying we will learn and not learning.
What is apparent is that the efforts being made at the front line, with the industrial scale of training and administration are not being so visibly led and embraced at the “centre” (archbishops council and the Charity Commission). That has an impact on morale.
One issue is that the weight of compliance will take all the safeguarding energy – overregulation, especially when it is not institutionally owned, is bypassed – especially when (Soul Survivor, Peter Ball, The Nine O’Clock Service) the outcomes of those who bypass the rules are seen to be effective and are praised by the system and its leaders.
If the only way to “succeed” is to bypass the rules that is what will inevitably happen. There is insufficient attention to institutional dynamics (and indeed to culture and the levers necessary to change that).
The situation is a great deal worse than most Anglicans ever realise. That is what needs to change! A blinkered or relatively uninformed laity is easily fooled.
The official Anglican narrative perhaps has run: ‘Abuse is historical and largely sexual, so compensation settlements plus NDAs are the way forward. Over time lots of victims will die, get silenced or give up’.
The reality is that the horrendous tip of the iceberg cases (M Pilavachi, J Fletcher) should point us to an absence of proper protections for Church members, curates, trainees, junior clergy. Thus it comes as no huge surprise to see great masses of bullying-abuse-harassment collapsing the modern Anglican Church.
Our greatest weapon is the collection plate. Those of us who remain should switch from pounds to pence in our yearly givings. That will be the ultimate wake up call over time. There may be good reasons to remain and fight for reform from the sidelines.
The CoE Safeguarding is a huge box-ticking exercise. I was spiritually abused by a vicar for two years of ministerial training. This guy had qualifications in psychology and knew exactly what he was doing, and was abetted by his sinister clerical colleague. Amongst many fearful and damaging experiences, as my Bishops’ Advisory Panel date approached he said to me, “The BAP panel are going to wipe the floor with you.” In spite of all of this l passed the BAP and with the help of a really kind priest l was ordained as an SSM two years later.
My experiences though, have left me deeply damaged. I am very suspicious and wary of clergy and of the Church hierarchy. I have not renewed my Safeguarding and am now banned from ministry. But my abusers are free to strut around in their dog-collars.
I have not made an official complaint because l have no faith in the system, and because my abusers are so manipulative they would turn the whole thing back onto me.