I was having a conversation recently with a supporter of the blog about the meaning of the word safeguarding. In my response to something she had said, I had simply used the expression ‘power abuse’. As far as I could see, the expression safeguarding almost always involved a situation where an individual or an institution was being held to account for an act potentially involving the harmful exercise of power. Safeguarding is the act of protecting the vulnerable against the malign intentions of the strong. Protecting the vulnerable is a serious business and when we use the term, we should always recognise that something potentially evil is being addressed. Unfortunately, using the word safeguarding often fails to communicate the seriousness the word deserves. Somewhere along the line, its use to describe the numerous courses laid on to train church members from congregants to bishops has removed the urgency from its meaning. It has become an idea that for church people has frequently become rather ‘fluffy’. It has been detached from the horror that is implied when vulnerable people are not protected and kept safe. As part of the conversation I was having, I suggested that we might try and do without the word safeguarding, particularly if, by using it, we sanitise and remove the horror of what may be implied by the word.
Archbishop Sarah, in her presidential address to General Synod in February, lifted my spirits initially when she spoke about power abuse at the start of what she had to say on the theme of safeguarding. Was she going to say more about safeguarding being rooted in the setting of power abuse or were we going to hear the same somewhat tired cliches about putting survivors and victims at the centre of everything that the Church is doing in this area? Sadly, Sarah, writing this part of her address that seemed to promise so much, then reached for the cut and paste button on her computer, and we were offered the same stale food of promises and unfulfilled statements about justice and support for survivors. The promise of a clear-eyed vision and understanding that safeguarding is in the last resort all about the misuse and abuse of power from the top to the bottom of the church structure was not grasped. Safeguarding was once more to become the overworked word to be used by the Church to suggest that we now have the structures and the understanding to put an end to criminal behaviour and sexual exploitation of the vulnerable within the institution. The insight that many observers now have is that abuse of power is a perennial problem for every church. Power is abused not only in acts of sexual deviance but every time a member of the church bullies or obtains gratification from humiliating or dominating someone else. Obviously sexual abuse is at the extreme end of abusive behaviour we are describing, but there are many other examples of abuse in the life of the church that need to be named and outlawed if we are ever to have a church that is truly safe. The problem for the church is that we have tolerated for so long dominating, controlling and coercive behaviour that we have learned to overlook behaviour that is sometimes cruel, life destroying and discriminatory. Safeguarding, in the sense of protecting people from sexual exploitation, is only one small part of the wider reality of power abuse that some church members often face.
In having this conversation, I was realising that my own book, Ungodly Fear, published 25 years ago as a study on the abuse of power in the church, did not use the word safeguarding once. The word was not then in common use as a convenient shorthand for the power and sexual abuse issues that we see in the church. My insight then, when writing the book, was a very simple one. The Church, especially in the conservative evangelical house-church manifestations that I was focusing on, has a problem with power. If an individual or an institution is given power over others, then there is always the possibility, indeed probability, that this power will, at some point, be abused. Independent congregations, led by charismatic narcissistic leaders, are those in the greatest danger of seeing their congregants abused financially or sexually. Church bodies that preserve systems and protocols of oversight and mentoring may have fewer episodes of criminal abuse, but they still face issues of dealing with power. The abuse of power in a church setting may take a number of forms. I described in the book power abuse being manifested in financial exploitation, sexual failings, persecution and the ostracism of disapproved minorities. There was also the appeal to the demon world to justify behaviour which would be unacceptable to most Christians. It is my contention that whenever power is abused, not just criminal sexual abuse, it should be scrutinised and, if necessary, outlawed from the Church. Keeping church members safe does not come merely by protecting the vulnerable from sexual predation. It should include protection from any kind of abusive power being exercised over them. We do not always want to recognise these situations of oppression where the strong exercise their power over the weak. Perhaps the horrors of the past in terms of what has be done to the innocent by godly men (mainly) has desensitised us to this kind of damaging behaviour. I do not believe it to be an exaggeration to suggest that every form of power abuse in the church is toxic and ultimately destructive.
I am putting forward the idea that the recent arrival of the safeguarding industry into the Church as response to the horrors of abuse has not made everyone safe. Officially safeguarding is about protecting everyone. Caring for the young and vulnerable seems to be a worthy activity that can be expected to achieve agreement without argument. But I am contending for the idea that the use of this word has too easily made everyone feel reassured and comfortable. If, however, we were to lose the word safeguarding and replace its use, when appropriate, with the words power abuse, we change the perception of what is involved instantly. Safeguarding/power abuse is a matter that demands our immediate attention because we hear in the words something of great seriousness, something that should be responded to instantly. The task of safeguarding when we take it seriously is not to make us have warm, maybe, patronising feelings for the vulnerable but a deliberate decision to identify vigorously places where power is being corrupted in a way that makes the institution and the people within unsafe.
The exercise of power in the Church is always going to be an activity involving risk. By saying this I do not mean to suggest that there is no place for authority in an institution like the church. We need to have ways of determining what are the best ways forward and the decisions to be taken to enable an organisation like a church to flourish. Gifts of leadership and management are vital for the church. Simultaneously we need to be far more sensitive to the way that power acting out in a negative way is a constant risk factor in any institution. Abuse of power, as we have seen, may involve criminal behaviour such as the sexual abuse of a minor. But any act which has as its aim the gratification of narcissism or self-importance in a leader can easily become abusive. The problem that often arises is a culture of ‘you scratch my back’ is that there is a corporate agreement to protect bad behaviour. In this kind of culture those who are not part of a favoured ‘in-crowd’, can find life extremely tough. Hierarchical churches, whether Anglican, Catholic or independent all have ways of feeding the almost universal desire for power and importance. People use status and position to boost their self-esteem and maybe compensate for neglect from parents when children. Such hankering after power blights the smooth running of any organisation. Sometimes the pursuit of power is not about acquiring importance but rather as a way to avoid the opposite experience, the inherited blight of shame. This may have been planted within the personality at a very early age by parents or contemporaries. Warding off the demons of shame, weakness and humiliation in a lifetime of maladaptive growing up may provide a powerful motivation towards behaviour of this kind.
The word safeguarding is, we would suggest, a word that reveals almost nothing of its inner meaning and content. It sounds neutral and formal while the reality of what it points to is often that of exploitation and abuse of power. It would be so much more salutary as well as honest if the word safeguarding was routinely replaced with a brief two-word alternative, such as power abuse or institutional bullying. The Church of England as an institution has, according to numerous abuse survivors, lamentably failed to meet their needs, in terms of pastoral care, compensation and justice. By refusing to name accurately what has been going on in the abusive episodes it is asked to respond to, the church safeguarding authorities blunt any proper acknowledgement of what has really happened. How much better it would be if Diocesan Safeguarding Officers were called something that reflected the harsh reality of what they sometimes meet? A better descriptor might be abuse supporter or in bullying situations, a conflict mediator. Whatever title is found to be most suitable, it would have to be one that picked up in the title something of the pain, devastation and shame that is so often found in a safeguarding situation.
The word safeguarding is, as far as I can see, at best a problematic word for many people in the Church. On the one hand it blunts the horror of power abuse that is often found in institutions like the Church. On the other hand it casts a miasma of suspicion over everyone in the Church if they have in any way failed to have their training and accreditation brought right up to date. Perhaps the time has come where we try to manage to have safety in the Church without using the over-used word. I for one would prefer to have it that way.
Is it “Safeguarding”-or-“Safe Guarding (guarding of diocesan safe contents)”? A skim through a diocesan website raises alarm in my mind. A Christian name and family name appear for a “Safeguarding Officer”. Wider website content is suffocatingly complicated and lacks transparency. There is an impression of it being designed to confuse readers.
Also, are there any legal, clinical or theological credentials listed? Is there a meaningful CV, even of a rudimentary form? Are there any degree level qualifications listed? Is there any higher statutory training course qualification listed, or does relevant vocational training completed get listed? What professional bodies is the safeguarding person accredited with? Is the person independent of bishops and archbishops? Who provides their pay, and perks or pensions, and could there be hidden conflicts of interest present? How many years has the person served for? Who are they directly answerable to?
Lots of us will answer quite a number of these questions with a resounding “No” I suspect. Do we really have much confidence-little or none really-in the ability (or will) of Anglican dioceses to address BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment? The plot left town a long time ago on Anglican diocese protections against BAH.
These questions can also be asked of the so-called “Independent Chair of Safeguarding”, a part-time appointment of a person who may carry out an investigation into any complaint made about the Safeguarding process. In one Diocese, this person has had a career as a Primary School teacher and currently has a portfolio of roles allowing them to pursue PhD studies. They have no legal or theological training or even a wide life experience which might allow them to come to a coherent and rational judgement. However, the Complaint Process is entirely moot since the sanctions available at the end of the Complaints process are minimal and have no effect on the DSO and their cavalier attitude to their own published procedures. BAH (Bullying, Accusations, Harassment) at its most passive aggressive best.
Power Abuse! Of course that is what it is all about. Thank you Stephen for pointing it out. Power does not safeguard anyone and seems to be the reason that senior clergy do not respond to emails and letters asking for justice and compassion. They like to feel they are in charge and resent being told of any mistakes or faults. I have personally met with this.
Victims and survivors, in their desperate hour of need, many having suffered horrific abuse, are ignored and turned away time after time for years. Is there no shame or compassion in the hearts of these people who are here to do God’s work and follow in the footsteps of Our Lord? Do they not have a conscience any more?
Not only clergy but, as Stephen mentions, Diocesan Safeguarding Officers. With reference to the second paragraph of James Hardy’s comment I tried for two years to find answers to these questions. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place or not asking the right questions but I failed.
The DSO in our diocese insists that the complainant should be believed and any evidence to the contrary is inadmissible. To prove her point, she has spent the past six years since her appointment in withholding credible evidence which might have exonerated a particular respondent.
Although senior clergy, including a bishop and even the local MP, have tried to persuade the DSO to release these evidences, she has steadfastly refused. It seems that she is autonomous and no-one has any authority over her. She is defiant and reigns supreme. She seems to be central to the miscarriages of injustice in the Diocese and is unstoppable.
So clergy and DSOs conspire to maintain their own power and coverup so others can keep theirs. They seem to be a formidable claque but not forever. Take heart,my friends and remember, “He hath put down the mighty from their seat”.
Your time will come and in the meantime I continue to pray for you.
I have hesitated about making this comment as I fully understand that people are reluctant to go to law, not least due to what can be the prohibitive cost of doing so. But the answer to your question who can compel production of documents where the interests of justice demand it and the refusal is demonstrably unreasonable are the civil Courts of this land. In answer to a related recent question, there are Christian solicitors and I knew a firm where every day started with a prayer meeting but, alas, that was more than 50 years ago. I’m not in touch with any now, but somewhere there should be a willing lawyer who can help.
Yes! An experienced lawyer has an ability to concisely summarise the central question (or questions) which a bishop or archbishop needs to address.
Some law firms will take a case on a ‘no win no fee’ basis, if they think it has a good chance of succeeding. But why need the solicitor be a Christian? And how would Susan’s friend know whether they were a Christian or not?
I’d rather have a solicitor with integrity, skill, and a passion for justice than a ‘Christian’ without any one of those qualities – which was indeed the choice I made.
I would want both-a competent lawyer, and also a believer! A law person’s precision is helpful, even if there is no immediate claim. Posing the right question, to the most senior Church person, is surely part of the game.
But why does the lawyer need to be a believer? And if they are, might they have a conflict of interest in a case involving the Church?
Frame it a different way. If you had two identically qualified and experienced lawyers, one a convinced Christian and the other a militant atheist, would you consider taking on the former rather than the latter?
The Christian revelation is very specific, about fullness of truth-justice-love being revealed in Christ. So why would we not favour using a Christian lawyer?
Your issue, about conflict of interest, would apply if the lawyer had personal connections to a diocese-group-employee being complained about. But surely not in the generic sense of just being a believer. It might even be construed as discriminatory, to not use a Christian lawyer for this reason.
Being an Anglican might help them understand the nuances of how bishops and their friends try to cover up maltreatment of people-‘The Bishop Clay-Foot and Rev Bully-Knowall’ scenarios which so blight Anglican dioceses.
Janet, if we are going to think about a solicitor we shall need sound advice in finding one. We only want an investigation into the registers as cost could be a factor.
If you think it is appropriate I should be happy for Stephen to give you my email contact. If you would rather not I don’t mind; it was just an idea.
I can’t remember – have you tried submitting a Subject Access Request? Though, if my experience of Bradford Cathedral is anything to go by, they didn’t include anything from the registers – or indeed, the parish magazine – when they replied. I suppose I ought to have complained to the Information Commissioner.
Thank you and yes. Over the years we have requested three Subject Access Requests with many redactions in them all. They even redacted an email John had sent and which did not name anyone else.
We never thought to ask for the information from the registers although as we needed to name the complainant they would have refused. It had been made quite clear that no other person should be mentioned.
After the third SAR we were told any further ones would only be issued at the discretion of the Director of Operations and very good reasons would have to be given for the request.
I have thought for some time that the refusal was a cover up and the complainant and respondent were not in the vestry at the same time which would negate the whole allegation.
Thank you for your reply Janet.
It does look as if there’s not much more you can do, which is very frustrating. Maybe we could pray for a change of personnel in the diocese? Or, one prayer I have often prayed, is that the truth of a situation or a person becomes known. God is always on the side of truth, though organisations – and churches – so often aren’t.
When all other options are exhausted, that’s when God sometimes steps in. It’s no accident that so many of the Psalms are prayers for vindication.
Thank you Janet for your reply. There will be a change in personnel when the present Dean retires in May.
I shall be looking out for any opportunity when I might draw attention not only to our injustice but all the other ones in this diocese.
I do pray for justice for all. Perhaps our diocese might be an example for other similar ones. I used to hope we might become a test case and others would follow in its wake.
I am nothing if not ambitious for Truth in the C/E!!
I’ll pray that the new dean will be sympathetic to your case, and a person who values truth and justice.
Susan, could there be a world of a difference between-‘a solicitor to represent’-and a legally qualified (or informed) person to concisely write the specific three or four questions to be addressed? Clarity and brevity in a written request can sometimes have a sobering impact on recipients. There are certain stock words or phrases frequently, in a given area or situation, which really wake up recipients. Sometimes a legally constructed letter can look bland and dull, as well as being exceptionally short, but have a very positive impact.
Susan, I’m appalled at your experience of the DSO. I struggle to understand her obstinacy, as my experience was the polar opposite and I don’t know why. I’m due to have contact with her again fairly soon. It happens that I’ll be mentioning the dean, as he was rather dismissive of a concern which I raised last year, which will be part of my pending conversation with the DSO.
Thank you Janet and Peejay. I think the important thing is for the DSO to be called to account; not just in our case but others in the Diocese too.
The MP, in writing, asked some very probing questions she wanted the DSO to answer personally in a meeting. The DSO sent some answers back in writing but they did not fully answer the questions and led to further ones being submitted by the MP.
These were ignored and the DSO on behalf of the diocese closed the case refusing the possibility of ever having a meeting.
That is where we are now. The excellent questions posed by the MP should be answered because that is the only way in which the DSO can ever be called to account.
Peejay, I wish you well with your meeting with the DSO and hope it provides some answers.
Thank you both for your prayers.
Thank you all for your suggestions and ideas but we have tried to find a solicitor and failed.
My friend found some funding in his accounts which might have paid for the law to find the contents of the choral registers. If it could be proved (and it might not have done), that he and the boy were not in the Cathedral at the same time on the only three dates when the allegation could have taken place, this would have meant the allegation was fabricated from the beginning. It would also have proved the whole of the past six years has been in vain as far as the Diocesan Safeguarding Officer is concerned
The DSO had been saying since May 2021 that the case was closed but, as you know, we have ignored that. However in December 2025 the MP who was supporting us, said they, [the Diocese] “have made it clear that they will not reopen their decision or agree to a meeting.” We were also told, “an MP cannot overturn or influence safeguarding decisions”. This was deeply disappointing as we thought she might have some legal influence.
Anyway, I contacted two prestigious firms of solicitors who have branches throughout the country but they said they could not help in this case. I then contacted two different solicitors albeit part of these firms but they could not help.
Following advice I did contact the media at the time of the Revd Anne-Marie Ghosh case pointing out the similarities of the two cases in attitude of the diocese. Also during the debate about ++Sarah Mullally’s appointment I raised the issue (yet again!) of the nine parallels between our case and that of Father Alan Griffin. There was no interest.
That is the situation we are at now and I really do think we shall have to call it a day unless anyone has a further suggestion.
Over the years I have found your interest very supportive and encouraging and it has been much needed. We are hugely grateful to Stephen for this blog and the support it has given.
Thank you so very much to you all.
I am sure all of us send prayers for you and your husband. There are many faithful people fighting against the injustice within the church. It is insidious and we must keep going. There seems to be no help in the secular or ecclesiastical circles. I send love to you and pray that a way will be opened for you both. Margaret
Thank you very much Margaret but he is a family friend going back to University days.
My husband though is supportive of all we have been doing throughout these years and we all need the prayers you offer.
Your message is appreciated. X
God is not mocked! There are countless cases where protection of Anglcian Church bullies and abusers has backfired!
ACC-19 conference will meet in Belfast this summer. English and Irish Anglican Primates will probably have their swankiest Bo-Peep Sticks and vestments on show.
But a cynical half century cover up of savage child abuse casts a stain on the credibility of Archbishop John McDowell, and other chums in the Irish House of Bishops.
An abuser called Rev Canon Dr William George Neely abused Belfast children in the 1970’s. The Anglican Church in Ireland shifted Neely, and managed to cover the scandal up for almost 50 years.
But one bold and brave victim, Eddie Gorman RIP, facing terminal illness and in the final weeks of his life, pulled the plug on the abuse cover up. He won compensation, and gave the Irish media a scent to follow.
Perversely, the late Rev Dr Canon William George Neely, a child abuser, now rests in a grave site close by a wall of the Irish Primate’s Cathedral seat in Armagh. A tombstone epitaph ends PRIEST SHEPHERD FRIEND.
We should raise a glass to the late Eddie Gorman, now looking down upon discredited bishops or archbishops. Never give up! God is not mocked. A 2020 Church statement, celebrating Canon Neely, now looks exceptionally stupid.
This blog, which I’ve valued for many years, has confirmed to me the sad truth that you can’t prove innocence.
I’m a Christian. Growing up I was taught that we were better than “non Christians” and seeing our goodness, some of them might “become Christians”. Experience shows me that almost none of this happens to be true.
If someone prefaces their profession with “a Christian…”, for example a Christian accountant, I immediately warn myself to have less trust in them than I otherwise might. Working in a “Christian” firm was the least wholesome experience of my professional life. I say this with regret. It broke an illusion.
People with no religious belief or different ones from me, can be better and have much more integrity. That’s been my experience too.
Early church was people without much supporting each other, without fancy titles, clothes and buildings. They were learning about the goodness and generosity of Christ. The rest is pretty much worthless, in my opinion. Being without it has been enriching.
I’m not sure institutional Church can be materially changed, but we can warn others of its dangers and try to support them.
“Safeguarding” is usually a misnomer, a trigger word to signal the opposite.
Keep up the good work Stephen. Thanks for what you’re doing.
Steve, that’s my experience also.
My first job was as editorial assistant with a Christian publishing company. Our sales manager had previously had a senior position as buyer with WH Smith. He commented that in the secular book trade, it was common to seal deals with a handshake, and he’d never been let down – but in the Christian book world, he’d found he had to get everything in writing. The Christians couldn’t be trusted to keep their word.
I don’t know how to account for this sad fact, but I wonder whether an over-emphasis on instant forgiveness, and an under-emphasis on Christian discipleship and ethics, has something to do with it.
It gets even sadder!
REV WILLIAM JAMES STEWART [‘WILLI’] case in Norwich Diocese exemplifies the scale of the problem in the upper elites of Anglican Church leadership. Mike Garde [see ‘Dialogue Ireland’ posts on ‘WILLI’ case] dissects the situation in around 20 online posts.
WILLI pleaded guilty in court to interfering with a much younger man, who had been stopped overnight in the rectory. WILLI was a high profile charismatic-evangelical leader in a much celebrated and revived inner city church. It was assumed he would be banned from ministry.
That seems to be what an Archbishop directed. But this did not happen. WILLI got a fresh start in part-time ministry in a new diocese. And then the story gets really interesting. WILLI later moved to a distant Anglican parish in yet another diocese, getting restored to ministry in a new vicar’s post.
It was only when Mike Garde intervened (on behalf of the victim’s mother) that WILLI resigned. What was presented as an out of character abuse event was not a first offence by WILLI. This case reflects light on deep problems covered up by our Bishops and Archbishops across the UK.
It sickens me to see a-‘priestess of woke’-like Sarah Mullally made global Anglican Primate. Why pick someone from the London Diocese, where we saw the £5.2 million fraud with Martin Sergeant, and the grotesque background to the suicide of Fr Allan Griffin-framed by a fraudster but exonerated posthumously by a coroner?
Yes, I heard similar from someone I know well working in Christian music publishing. Household name worship leaders would miss studio deadlines and just expect to be let off or “forgiven”, as you say. Sloppy at best. It seems almost ok to take liberties (and worse) with other Christians. Pity the poor young interns at Soul Survivor, what they had to put up with.
The Martin Sergeant and Fr Allan Griffin situations are grotesque. But there’s just ever so much hidden Anglican BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment).
A cartoonist could run a satirical Church of England feature on Bishop ClayFoot and the Rev BullyKnowAll. The vicar kicks around people for aeons, but their Bishop chum covers it all up for an eternity.
The Sergeant-Griffin scenarios have not cropped up in a vacuum. Is there a vast amount of chronic hidden Anglican BAH, and the media just get a periodic scent or glimpse when some sinister-‘acute on chronic’-issue comes into view?
Two out of the five Anglican ministry trainees, in my single New Wine overseen training group, were viciously accused of sexual misconduct by a New Wine leader. Three senior adult professionals noted the acute mental state of one victim.
None of the four accused people felt there was the slightest grain of truth, to charges delivered in foul tirades by a New Wine tutor. Why did our bishops or archbishops not fix a formal and independent inquiry?
A teacher, professor and medic left the local diocese in disgust, partly on the advice of a senior non-conformist leader who was shocked at senior Anglican cleric’s inaction.
The maltreatment of people was reported to Archbishop level. But almost a decade later there is no sign of any formal or independent inquiry. A contempt for national law, church rules and biblical principles of natural justice has done vast damage.
Modern Anglican Bishops and Archbishops reap what they sow. The Empty Church, not the Empty Tomb, defines UK Anglicanism. It takes satanic deceit and deception, to make the most positive message in the cosmos have a sour taste and stink.
But that’s what concealing Anglican BAH on a grand scale achieves. Older victims can walk away, and exercise-express faith differently. I dread to consider the damage done to many younger BAH victims.
You should know, of course Steve, that many have still not recovered; apart from the huge investment in therapy it costs the institution.
The damage done by narcissists, and how the institution hides and protects them, should come with a warning for all innocents entering naively into it.
Are they actually getting therapy? I often wonder if there are even enough therapists to staff the vast amount of work needed.
The damage wasn’t just psychological and emotional, as you know. Many lost career opportunities in safer places, with lifelong loss of things like pension contributions etc.
Abusers getting protected, and sinister ill-founded accusations against countless innocent people, causes immense personal pain. But the wider Church suffers too.
The great 1948 Lewis revival, connected with Rev Duncan Campbell, allegedly saw prayer rooted in these words: ‘If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land’.
Do the Sargeant and Griffin cases in London, plus countless other situations where the Anglican church has maltreated victims-witnesses-whistleblowers, and shielded abusers or embezzlers, reveal a widespread and blasphemous senior Church leadership contempt for values which the Bible holds dear?
There is an Anglican elephant in the room on sexuality. Our denomination holds people who take a range of divergent views on gender and sexuality.
But-and it really is a gigantic block capital BUT-why do our senior leaders have little or nothing to say on abortion? An infamous Irish case saw a gay man unceremoniously evicted from his organist role at Co Sligo’s Drumcliffe Anglican parish in 2019.
Yet were those behind this event, or the senior leaders who mounted no independent inquiry, ever say great deal about abortion? One might reasonably imagine how abortion is quite often related to heterosexual sex. But is sin related to heterosexual sex possibly not on the radar with GAFCON bishops?
Ever so many exceptionally good things emerged from the charismatic-renewal movement of the 1970’s. It’s a tragedy over more recent years how this wing of the Anglican Church has not dealt with bullying issues. Why does so much scandal arise here?
An ‘anointed leadership prophet’ cannot be wrong. So those daring to report savage bullying all too easily get labelled “troublemakers” and ostracised. Can there be a modern revival of belief in the modern UK if congregation members do not finally call abusive leaders to account, and senior leaders who habitually protect bullies?
Yes Steve in my dotage I look back and realise what you say is in many cases the truth. I thought that this work was the pathway to heaven and hoped others would follow. Was it all an ego trip or was there some truth we had discovered? The baby and the bath water!
It is a time of disillusionment in many things as we discover that no organisation can lead us to God. Looking back at the early church-the hermits and anchorites, we learn to find God when we are alone.
After spending 40 years in industry, most in management and senior positions, I was shocked by the standards of behaviour of several of those (in holy orders) that I came into contact with in my title post. I have continued to witness it, and the consequences.
Standards which would not be tolerated out in the world where people would be pulled up short. Bullying, manipulation, abuse of power in general, narcissistic personality disorders, misogyny, homophobia, discrimination, have no place in world of business. Why so in the church?
Stephen is right to question how the word ‘safeguarding’ is being used. More often it would seem to be whitewashing for a sepulchre in the Matt 23 sense.
Robert Springett, the new lead bishop for safeguarding states the subject needs theology. (See the latest CT.) Let’s hope he also brings a fresh-eyes approach and a revelation, because heaven knows he needs one having not held any position or experience of note outside the church institution since finishing his early education.
Deuteronomy 19: 15-20 reminds us of central principles of natural justice. Anglican Bishops often seem to have forgotten these, or just ignore them. Innocent people get framed, and have their reputations trashed on the basis of mere gossip or fabricated evidence. The Fr Allan Griffin story is a classic case. Yet those who bully-abuse-harass often get off with it, even in the face of compelling evidence from trustworthy victims, witnesses or whistleblowers. Why does the Anglican Church not punish those burdening innocent people with false accusations of sexual misconduct, or other fictitious charges?
Thank you, Eddie – and Stephen.
With reference to ‘Safeguarding needs theology’ and Bishop Springett (Church Times 10/04/2026), is this ‘theology’ or ‘interpretation’ of theology?
My experience of ‘abuse’ (‘deliverance ministry’) occurred during the era of John Wimber’s ‘power ministry’.
It was reported in 2021, that key theological elements in John Wimber’s teaching included: expectation of the miraculous, demonic influences, ‘power healing,’ and ‘power evangelism.’
Am I the only one floundering here with the word ‘theology’? Am I way off beam?
Thank you.
I had some experience of Wimber, and did a critique of his ministry in my MPhil thesis. I think his emphasis on power was very unhealthy, and too often pastorally destructive. It was also highly manipulative and based on techniques which are medically classed as hypnosis. HIs conference on managing change was an eye-opener – it was clear that what looked spontaneous and genuine was actually deliberate and tactical.
All the same, I did have some profound experiences of God while at Wimber conferences, and witnessed God working in others also, amid all the dodgy stuff. I find that difficult to explain, and am currently exploring the subject. Grateful for any ideas!
The separation of the supernatural and natural could be a good place to start. I think G K Chesterton saw the whole creation as supernaturally charged.
The cosmos, the human mind-brain, human society and our reflections on the universe, affirm the reality of mysterious and non-material dimensions. We have seen lots of the abusive silliness in charismatic bible cults.
Sinister and savage as it is, there is also an incredibly silly dimension to lots of abusive nonsense in bible cults. A Bishop Clay-Foot+Rev Knowall plot has played out far too often.
Rev Knowall is an arrogant and aggressive presence. He/she gets up to all sorts of BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment). But, in spite of multiple reports, Bishop Clay-Foot will hear-see-do nothing about Rev Knowall.
Rev Knowall and Bishop Clay-Foot are “anointed leadership prophets”. Anyone who challenges them is evil. Victims-witnesses-whistleblowers invariably get blown out, or driven away as “troublemakers”.
Conscience, law and justice should be viewed as having a supernatural character. The alternative can be to let bible cult leaders (in a Donald Trump fashion) imagine they can do whatever they please, without any sanction.
I agree entirely. Having worked in secular employment for nigh on 50 years, never in all that time did I see anything so downright nasty as I experienced at the hands of some who wear dog collars. Narcissism is rife amongst clergy.
‘Dialogue Ireland response to the CHURCH OF IRELAND GAZETTE article on Willi Stewart. (Posted on 22 November 2012 by dialogueireland)’
This online article above concerns the Rev William James Stewart case. Would any secular group have handled the appointment of this man in the fashion Norwich Diocese did?
It saddens me how Dialogue Ireland’s Mike Garde successfully exposed a sinister Anglican Church cover up. Yet the Church and secular media seem to have missed just how grave a situation was not properly addressed. It’s not a foul up, but a clear case where sinister forces have been at work. The adjective we might place before some of our bishop’s or archbishop’s names is ‘satanic’.
Deception has been the order of the day for a long time. Letting the ex-Bishop of London become Archbishop, even in the wake of the £5.2 million Sargeant embezzlement, and the ‘brain dump’ which hurt and harmed innocent priests (like Fr Allan Griffin) is very telling.
‘Project Spire’ also reflects a contempt for the laity. One survey suggested how 61% of Church respondents might consider withdrawing financial support for the Church if the ‘Project Spire’ reparations go ahead. Many Anglicans query if they should stay or go. For those staying, but deprived of ‘representation’, ceasing to pay ‘taxation’ is one of the few ways to make a clear statement which Mullally and chums will listen to.
In my view ‘safeguarding’ has become the new ‘Heath and Safety’. A button to press to set the ecclesiastical fire brigade running. Well-intentioned it has become a shibboleth to trap the unwary and common sense goes out of the window. I do not deny the bad experiences of many but that should not distort what we do
Why tolerate blasphemous inversion of Deuteronomy 19 vs 15-20 on an epic scale? To not be informed by victim experience is sinister. The cherry on the icing is appointing Mullally, even after the Sargeant-Griffin fiasco exposure.