For those of us who have been following the Independent Inquiry over the last three weeks, today, the final day, has come as something of a relief. The lawyers who worked so hard presenting the extensive material related to the Diocese of Chichester will, no doubt, be going away for a well-earned rest. I will personally be quite relieved not to be having to listen to the hours of testimony each day before making personalised comments on the proceedings. But, much to my surprise my comments have been appreciated. For the first time in four years the viewing figures for the blog have reached over three figures. So, I owe it to my new readers to make some final comment as the Inquiry (as far as the Chichester Diocese is concerned) comes to an end.
Today the proceedings were addressed by two lawyers acting for survivors, Richard Scorer and David Greenwood. It was their task to respond to the days of evidence and summarise what they have heard as well as reflect the views of the survivors that they represent. Both Richard and David asked the Inquiry to consider recommending a compulsory oversight of the Church’s management of safeguarding practice. Both of them also know from what their clients have told them of the way that the church has often obstructed survivors of sexual abuse in their attempts to be heard. The spoken evidence of the individuals from this group has been impressive. The overall impression from listening to these testimonies is that few are seeking large pay-outs from the church, even though in many cases lives, careers and potential relationships have been ruined. What many of them have sought is simply some way that they can be heard. The Church in its dependence on lawyers and insurance companies has appeared to have pulled up the drawbridge, making communication very difficult. Who can forget the 17 letters sent by Gilo to Lambeth Palace and the limp response to just one?
David Greenwood summed up the problem of one part of this church culture when he talked about it being a ‘defensive culture’. He said, no doubt speaking for a considerable number of survivors: ‘none of our complainant witnesses have described having been welcomed and assisted at any point by church officials. Indeed, there were attempts at all levels to minimise the seriousness and volume of cases.’ I have written on several occasions in this blog about the importance of welcome in church life. If we think about it, a true welcome into a living community without making conditions over status or position is one of the most precious things that a church can offer. Welcome does not need words. It speaks of acceptance, tolerance and love. So many Christians think that to be a Christian is the ability to recite a formula of correct words. They forget that the most powerful and attractive words in the New Testament are those spoken by the Son of Man returning in glory. He invites the righteous ‘to take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.’ To be a Christian is to respond to this invitation to participate in a full transcendent life.
A church which is defensive, is operating in a way that is completely counter to a vision of welcome and openness to all. The church is or should be a place of forgiving and healing brokenness. There is something very strange if it wants to shut out a particular category of the broken – the survivors of church abuse. Of course, there are many problems as regards resources and adequate expertise to fulfil this task, one that is difficult and challenging. But what has been revealed in the past three weeks is the way that the Church in many places has placed actual obstacles in the way of those simply want to be heard and acknowledged. Many have been so hurt by this response that they have given up on the Church altogether. Who can blame them? But I also find it hard to believe that a rejected Christian who has been abused and hurt by members of the Church will ever be rejected by God.
The words ‘change of culture’ are of course becoming a bit of a cliché in church survivor circles. One way in which the Church could begin to change is by rediscovering the ministry of welcome. Learning to welcome people better, not put up defensive fences against them, is the first stage of creating a healing church. Some abused victims of the Church will have specialised needs, but I suspect that many of them can be helped by genuine loving and reconciling welcome. This will go a long way in helping them to rediscover what they were looking for when they first entered a church. The dysfunctional power dynamics which created their abuse in the first place need to be completely taken apart. It may require that the whole Church has to enter a period of complete brokenness before it can be rebuilt. The clergy will have to be taught how to resist the subtle temptations of narcissistic power games and abusive behaviour. Whether there are appropriate personality tests which could weed out in advance the exploiters of power in the church, I don’t know. But soon everyone who sets themselves up to be a member of the clergy must be seen to be a person of humility, openness and welcome. If the person at the centre is a follower of Jesus the servant, the washer of feet, then sexual abuse or any kind of power abuse would be impossible. The cultures of deference, hierarchy and social status will also have to be put away. It may take 20 years or even 50 years to see such ideas in place. Somehow it is a possible vision and the Inquiry has opened the eyes of many church people to see the utter ugliness of abuse, power games and control within our congregations. These will be identified and gradually expelled as people come to recognise the importance of safety and true welcome within the Body of Christ.
Thank you for your helpful and insightful reporting on the inquiry.
I dont think the church has 20 or 50 years to change. Change will be imposed upon it from the inquiry. There are many more shocking facts to come out in the next hearing.
‘soon everyone who sets themselves up to be a clergyman must be seen to be a person of humility, openness and welcome’. Or, indeed, a clergywoman.
When Welby and Hancock spoke at the hearing and were clearly moved by what they had heard, I had some glimmers of hope that the Church might indeed change, and these changes might be led from the top. The Archbishops’ so-called ‘Pastoral Letter’, just released for wide distribution, has snuffed out that hopeful glimmer. They haven’t learned a thing.
Will change the offending word! Problem is that the alternatives sound awkward and it was late at night when I wrote it.
Thank you Janet for your comment on the ‘Pastoral Letter’ which quite frankly beggars belief and so quickly churned out when survivors often have to wait months for a response if they get one at all!
Thank you Stepehen for your comments on the proceedings.
An excellent summary and reflection Stephen. Sincere gratitude for pursuing this and showing support for those impacted and re-abused by cold, un-Christian and inhumane reporting processes.
well,thank you. I was once rector of st james piccadilly for 18 years,and I have just completed 18 years working as a mediator in the Balkans. The Soul of Europe is a small mediating body. Some of our work has been successful – like instigating the reconstruction of the Ferhadija Mosque in Banja Luka;other activities have been less successful – like trying to get a memorial to those murdered in the killing camp at Omarska.
One of the things I learnt in the processes of peacebuilding is that it is not enough to ‘apologise’. A minor Serb official in Omarska confessed publicly and at great cost to himself what he had failed to do – when this happened it was as if some light had filled a very dark place. For a moment some sort of hope was given.
In the abuse scandals someone – probably one of the Bishops should resign. Each of them will know in their hearts what they should have done and failed to do. As long as nothing happens in spite of all the talking,etc. there will be no change.
Thanks for this Stephen. I go away for a week and it all takes off! I’m glad, and I hope that what you have done will bear fruit. Sadly, I agree with those who don’t believe anything will change. I really don’t feel brave enough to write to +Justin, for instance. I think he would do what clergy always do. Write to the person you are complaining about and land you in the doo doo. I doubt +Sarah will do anything either. She’ll be too busy, and then she’ll hand over to someone else who will take years to get their act together. I’m going to have to read some background stuff and sign on again and come back to this. I guess it’s worth it, even if there’s nothing in it for me!
I have to say, I think survivors should ask for money. It’s the only thing the church understands. Get them where it hurts, I say! I would!
Deeply problematic that the Church of England appears to have had an embargo in place on all Bishops and (most) Diocesan Twitter Feeds throughout the 3-Week Anglican Hearing. Question: under whose orders? Even though Sarah Mullaly (+London) ReTweeted the IICSA (infrequently), only Alan Wilson (+Buckingham) had the integrity to comment with any honesty or factual accuracy.
Shocked to witness Justin Welby’s ‘performance’ of ‘pastoral concern on the BBC News. His own Twitter Feed had NIL reference to the Anglican Hearing and ZERO ReTweets of any IICSA proceedings. Justin Welby did, however, have 7 posts (his own/others) promoting his own new book during the 3-Week period that the Inquiry into Church of England child sexual abuse was sitting. How does Welby’s ‘unashamed’ self-promotion coalesce win his purported ‘shame’ about how victims/survivors have been treated under his/other Arch Bishops’ leadership?
Only when Justin Welby argues for Mandatory Reporting in The Church of England can anyone be assured that he is concerned about properly Safeguarding children and vulnerable adults – whether they are attending Church or simply living in a Parish.
My Diocesan should explain why he did not pass on my information to the Police, and then he should resign.