Over the years I have given a great deal of thought to leadership in the Church. In the world of business there are individuals who earn a good living in teaching others how to be leaders. I have not read these books on leadership or attended any of the expensive training courses on offer. But, like everyone, I long to find a good leader in whatever organisation I belong to. We, the followers, have a fairly good idea about what we want from our leaders and it is perhaps my prejudices that are on display today as we reflect on the powerful testimony of Matt Ineson who gave evidence to IICSA.
In my mind I identify three characteristics of a good leader. The first of these is that a leader has a genuine identification with the followers. Identification needs to work in two directions. There should be a sense that the leader is one of the group, and, at the same, time the group might feel itself in some way represented by its leader. In the case of a bishop that would mean that every time the bishop goes to a parish or has any encounter with clergy or people, he/she would be listening carefully to what is being said. Because of the problem of deference, one issue for a sensitive bishop is that some people he meets do not speak with frankness. This will require gifts of listening and sensitivity if the barriers that deference has erected are to be overcome.
The situations that Matt Ineson described in his powerful testimony on Wednesday morning at IICSA showed us clearly that this first facet of leadership was not present in his encounters with church leaders. Every time Matt made a disclosure to a senior member of the clergy, including six bishops, we felt strongly that the bishops concerned were seriously failing in ways that went beyond simply failing to deal with the disclosure. In each case of disclosure, Matt experienced from the bishops displays of impatience, irritation or detachment. Each of these reactions was, arguably, betraying a failure of leadership. Identification with a member of the ‘followership’ should always be part of leadership. When this fails or deteriorates over time, we can see narcissistic tendencies creeping into the conduct of leaders. By ‘narcissistic tendencies’ I mean the way that the power of office becomes like an addictive substance. Instead of a constant recall to the example of the servanthood of Jesus, the senior church leader has been infected or seduced into self-inflation or an expanded ego. Certainly we would suggest that the leader has already failed seriously in this one key aspect of leadership – the readiness to identify and genuinely look out for the highest interests of those who accept in him/her the role of leader. In Christian language the leader is expected to love those who follow.
The second part of leadership is the ability to articulate a vision for the future. Any leader should have the capacity to inspire the followers with some hope that the future is brighter. If the leadership is not able to inspire some sense of purpose for the future, why should anyone want to follow such a person? Any institution worth joining, whether a club, a church or a political party, is making implicit promises to the followers. Join our group and we will travel together to make the world, the local neighbourhood or people in general better in some way. Leadership is often there to inspire and give hope that the one up front is able to bring these changes into reality.
The portrait that Matt painted this morning of bishops playing grubby games with legal processes at the expense of victims, made it difficult to see how these bishops would be capable of articulating an inspiring vision relevant to us. The Church, as represented by its own leaders, seemed concerned only to protect itself from moral or financial liability. The fact that Matt has emerged from so much traumatic experience at the hands of the ‘system’ is a miracle in itself. We must be grateful that he was so clearly able to articulate the experience of a survivor with a clear grasp of both his own story and the processes involved in the tortuous system that he had to negotiate. His case was helped by the physical presence of his local MP, Tracy Brabin. She has herself attempted to communicate with Lambeth Palace direct on Matt’s behalf. It seems that even House of Commons notepaper does not have the power to evoke an answer to her legitimate questions. The capacity to inspire with a vision of the future, so important in the task of effective leadership, seems to be hard to maintain in the context of the unedifying story of how some bishops in the Church of England collude together and obstruct justice and openness.
The final expectation that followers have of their leaders is that leaders will be able to demonstrate complete integrity and honesty. I have written on the topic of integrity fairly recently, so I have now little to add to that description. All of us have inside ourselves a picture of what we can be, inspired by ideals gained from outside as well as from within. One occasion when integrity becomes severely compromised is when we allow someone else to control us in some way. The cult narratives that I listened to last week often related how powerful leaders infiltrated the personalities of their followers, so that there was a dramatic inner change. The attack on integrity of leaders that we seem to be witnessing this week at IICSA is not coming from cult leaders. It is the pressure of the institution itself. The Church, its power and reputation in society, has become for some of its leaders so important that they will risk their own personal integrity to defend it. The tales we heard this morning of dishonesty, lying and power games that some bishops have been exhibiting in Matt’s case, suggest that once again a claim to exercise true leadership in the church is questionable. If Matt’s claims are not rebutted, and I don’t expect they will be, then they continue to stand. It is hard to see how resignations will not take place. The accusations that he makes against the past treatment of survivors are impossible to ignore.
On Wednesday 10th July 2019, a number of strong accusations were made against the senior level of the leadership of the Church of England. Until and unless these claims are shown to be false (which is unlikely) it can be said that the present senior tier is not adequately fulfilling the three aspects of leadership that I have set out. One wonders how the Church can continue without honesty, transparency and truth being allowed to flourish. Even if the Archbishops and senior lay staff manage to play down the seriousness of the accusations brought forward by Matt this morning, the cancer of dishonesty will still lie dormant within the institution. The problem for any institution corrupted in this way is that it subtly lowers the morale of members and impedes the nurturing of a a new generation of leaders. This is serious and we await to see whether the Church will find a way forward from these severe dents to its reputation and damage to its standing among the general public of England.
Well said, Stephen. It’s not on the front pages. It will vanish. The bishops will sit tight and ignore it.
It’s had a lot of coverage. Matt even made the ITN evening news. And Welby is on this afternoon. It’s been quite a week.
I’ve not seen much television with my Dad’s funeral, but I’ve seen some papers, and some tv, if not as much as usual. And I’ve seen nothing. So I’m guessing it’s easy enough to miss, though I’m glad it is getting some exposure. I’ll have to leave looking it up until Saturday, when I have some time. But I’ll keep hoping and praying.
I’m sorry your father has died. It will have been a difficult time for you.
Thank you. Hectic. I have now read some of the stuff from the inquiry.
Thank you for writing this Stephen. As I read I’m feeling very emotional, upset, hurt, sad on so many levels. Thank God HE knows the full truth of our hearts and motives of everyone of us EL ROI He Is The God Who sees Us. The lies, the cover up, the judgment before being able to present the truth is beyond words. “Matt experienced from the bishops displays of impatience, irritation or detachment. Each of these reactions was, arguably, betraying a failure of leadership. Identification with a member of the ‘followership’ should always be part of leadership”. When the leadership of your denomination do not support you it is the most shocking experience to live with. In our own individual lives when the foundations are being shook for whatever reason we need to face whatever and find a solution or else we will crumble and fall. The foundations of the Church of England are being shook and they can either be ignored and business as usual or we can fall on our faces before God and ask Him for His blueprint for the way forward. Face the issues, own the issues, be genuinely sorry and change direction. The message of the gospel is turning away from ways that destroy people, and turn around facing a new direction away from all that hurts and destroys others, then to do whatever it takes to make sure that change happens for the good of all.
This is a dreadful time to be a public representative of the CoE, an organization seen as cruel, hypocritical, and incompetent. Yet, apart from the Blackburn letter, I’ve heard of no bishop who has contacted his/her clergy to express understanding and support in this depressing time. All we get is photoshoots of people smiling, and myriads of advisors encouraging – indeed it can feel like hectoring – the shrinking pool of exhausted churchgoers to work even harder to get people to be friends with their version of Jesus. The message of Christianity is gold, but I’m coming round to the view that the institutional CoE is to be avoided. How can we invite others to join until the stables have been cleared?
Thanks for your analysis, Stephen. I agree with your three qualities but would like to suggest a fourth – humility, something that often seems less evident than other qualities. Humility should be part of our DNA. Like many of us, I have had a leadership role in several different circumstances. The model I keep returning to is the one I had as the leader of walking groups, people who for the most part were strangers at the start of a holiday. My model was that an observer should not be able to distinguish the leader unless it was necessary to, eg, when decisions were needed, but should see a group of friends travelling in the same direction and having a good time. Being a leader like that is not about exercising power but shepherding and guiding thosr you have responsibility for and encouraging them to do more than they think they can. Jesus was, I suggest, that sort of leader and one I aspire to imitate, however imperfectly. I also thank Stanley for his comments which I think are astute and well made. I long to see the Church held up as an exemplar of how to be and do.
Thank you for your continued reflection of the truth as more of the corruption at the heart of the church comes out into the public domain. The fact that those in positions of authority within the church come from a very narrow band of people of like background, money and privilege does not inspire confidence. I have no confidence in the House of Bishops or the two Archbishops whose interest still seems to be themselves and still protecting their own interests. Those who have shown servant leadership – Blackburn especially – are very much in the minority and must feel hung out to dry as others continue the ‘smile for the camera’ routine. Survivors like Matt Ineson are speaking truth to a power which has tried to silence and crush them. Servant leadership would weep with them, not threaten and bully them. Without real repentance in action not just words, a full disclosure of the truth from all organisations linked to the church, and a breaking of this toxic class structure and culture, this game of thrones will continue to destroy the church from within. Secret groups and wheels within wheels never leads to a healthy and open community. Now is time for transparency and openness before it really is too late. I fear the time has almost run out.
I have on previous occasions argued that the Commissioners be disendowed and that the greater part of their £8.3bn capital be vested in a religious buildings agency, which would take title to the great mass of parish churches, and so have the economies of scale to procure materials and resources which fading PCCs will never have.
Naturally, the Commissioners will never countenance losing their capital, but how else are the stock of parish churches to be preserved for Christian witness and worship, and for public benefit when almost the whole Church is hurtling towards extinction? (as noted in the archbishop of Wales’ IICSA testimony, there are a mere 27,000 regular attendees in Wales, almost all of whom are elderly, out of a population of about 3.1m)
Having now read through all the transcripts, I have come to the regretful conclusion that, if the Commissioners are to be disendowed along the lines I have suggested, they should be compensated by consolidating all remaining glebe and diocesan assets to the Commissioners. The dioceses would survive only as pastoral agencies with no administrative functions; all administration would be centralised at Church House; there would be no diocesan safeguarding officers (the quality of whose support has been highly variable), and safeguarding would be conducted by an independent or arms’-length agency financed by the Commissioners. Bishops would lose all administrative and disciplinary powers (a relic of their pre-Reformation ‘baronies’) and would only act as pastors. The Commissioners would then have the economies of scale and scope to realise efficiencies which dioceses will never have.
The parish is essential to the Church if it is to retain that comprehensive local reach that is its key differentiator from other denominations. The diocese is not.
Let the dioceses take the hit.
After today’s painful testimony, I hope that several of the bishops mentioned will be reflecting upon their positions. One of them was appointed after a two year interregnum. Two years, and the CNC still got it wrong!
The problem with that model is that it’s London-centric – and so often those based in London don’t have a clue what it’s like in the shires and provinces. We had enough difficulty with that as it is. Perhaps Church House could be moved to Birmingham, Slough or Milton Keynes? That ought to do something to counter the sense of elitism and privilege.
When I was a uni chaplain I was on the national HE chaplains committee and sometimes went to meetings in Church House. We would turn up in our jeans (and a flat cap in my case) to encounter men in 3-piece pinstripe suits wandering marble corridors with deep pile carpets. We relished lowering the tone, but I don’t think working in that kind of place is good for church officials. As Stpehn would say, it encourages narcissism and exceptionalism.
Many thanks. I am all for moving the Commissioners out of London and to somewhere more central (Birmingham, say). They sold the fine W. D. Caroe neo-Queen Anne building overlooking College Green in Millbank 14 years ago. There is no reason why they need to be at Church House.
Indeed, there is no reason why Synod should be at Church House either (or perhaps why we even need a Synod, at least one organised along the present lines).
It is worth noting that not all officials within the Commissioners are based in London. For instance, in the Pastoral Division, officers are located at Birmingham, St Albans, Salisbury, etc.
In any event, I see the location as a rather second order issue. It is the existence of 42 bureaucracies in addition to a central bureaucracy (plus a plethora of micro-bureaucracies at a parish/deanery) level that is surely economically preposterous in view of the demographic collapse.
Absent mandatory reporting and the erosion of clerical/episcopal power, the main lesson to emerge from the IICSA saga is that having a multiplicity of unevenly resourced safeguarding teams is going to lead to systemic vulnerability. Far better, therefore, to have one team with economies of scale, and one that is not a supplicant for scarce diocesan funds or susceptible to the interests, blandishments and sensibilities of senior diocesan clergy and officials.
I should add that I frequently attend services at the better part of a hundred churches without seeing [m]any children. In that sense, at least, one part of the problem is taking care of itself.
I’m not disagreeing at all, far from it. But if course the synodical system was designed to stop bishops railroading everyone else. A new scheme might prevent that. But the synodical system is so slow it’s ludicrous. Someone had a technical question about the CDM a little while ago now. I hunted round a few blogs to see if I could find you! Unsuccessfully.
Vision is essential in leadership, but not if you already “own” the whole land.
That’s one reason why we aren’t seeing any leadership from the C of E. It doesn’t really make any difference to the status quo what it does. Sure numbers will decline, but its ancient buffering wealth insulates its top people from their mistakes.
Change, if and when it comes, will come from outside.
Mandatory Reporting for example, if eventually instituted, will completely change the risk profile of being a top officer (bishop). The risk of ending up in prison for failure to report would, I suspect, lead to a rush of “early retirements”.
In one way, it is astonishing that ABC seems to be supporting MR, assuming I’ve understood this correctly. Essentially he’s conceding that the organisation he heads up is incapable of policing itself. He knows he doesn’t have the power or authority to change it. At bottom, it’s more corrupt than the secular world outside, which it presumes to preach to.
If so, I fear he’s right.
How do you reform the Church of England?
There have been some tempting answers mooted here, even some considered slightly tongue-in-cheek. Leeds over London perhaps, or my home city Newcastle? No, its dialect is too incomprehensible. What about having Liverpool as the church’s centre of operations? This would be my personal favourite for direct-talking-to-upset-the-fusty-ecclesiastical-classes as a location for head office.
Who would you get in from the outside to suggest change, or would you carry on drawing on insiders steeped in ancient tradition and lingo and liturgy?
How much would you pay?
Why do businesses pay for expensive leadership advice? I recall one company lashing out £30,000 on consultants, which seemed a lot until it became clear they’d recently lost £1,500,000 on a dubious investment decision that had gone wrong.
Cost brings pain and pain brings change. Which costs.
How about bringing in a Big 4 consultant like PwC or KPMG? Surely only they have the size and strength to take on the national Church? Yes, if you want rooms of bright young things straight out of Uni at £2,000 each per day x 50 + some more expensive senior players rounded up to £50m.
Ouch. That’s a lot to pay for a 1,000 page shiny report that will sit in a virtual or maybe even actual drawer. And no one will read.
How about bringing in a Methodist? That’s been tried. Or a Baptist?
Hang on a sec. let’s look at this from an outsider’s perspective for a moment. Would you risk your reputation on the Church of England? Sure you might get a fee of sorts. I suspect it wouldn’t be great.
Most advisory firms tendering for this sort of work have sophisticated risk management. They won’t deal with organisations involved in significant criminality, because there is a risk of being tainted by association. Peter Ball.
The big firms also have broad diversity criteria that must sign off on, before agreeing to act. What’s the Cof E like on diversity, for example? LGBTQ rights?
I can hear a collective sigh of relief from my clerical friends here. Fortunately the business world probably won’t touch this with a proverbial barge pole.
So who or what could help? Ideas on a postcard please.
For me, collectively, I still don’t think the Church is in enough pain yet to do anything about its difficulties. Anything significant that is. Individually however, it’s a different matter. I cringe daily at the suffering of its floundering spokespeople. Mantels put on with noble intention are heavy and bloodied. Daily battles are fought and published in the national press. And it looks like the war is getting worse.
How great must losses become before something is done?
The Church might be in quite a lot of pain already, especially at a local level. I attended a number of services in the diocese of Lincoln this Sunday; at three of them I was a third of the congregation, and at one of them I was half. The impact this sort of thing is having upon morale is evident.
The stasis in terms of fundamental reform is, I suspect, partly a form of institutionalised Micawberism and partly because they are obviously completely at a loss to know what to do.
It seems that the most effective impetus for reform (as seen in the approach HMG took towards women bishops a few years ago) will come from outside. I have drafted a bill for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Church along the lines proposed above. Naturally nothing will come of it, but I feel that the Church might be saved at a parish level only through the external agency of disestablishment/disendowment.
“I’m alright Jack”.
Of course there is a great deal of pain within the Church, rather like a giant pyramid. At the bottom of which is a huge number of people crushed from above. I’m talking not just about abuse victims and the casually disposed of ex spouses and children, but the large number of church workers, often unpaid, shattered by betrayal and incompetence.
At the top of the pyramid are the elite few, the custodians of the Legacy. Often this includes bishops, but leadership is not just confined to positions. We’ve heard here of “Nobody’s Friends” and there are other elite groupings such as the Langham Louts and the Kensington Clan. Through sheer financial muscle behind steady growth they dominate round this part of the world.
It’s the very top that seems anaesthetic to the pain below them. Insulated by power and influence they will continue to get paid until the last rural priest has gone. Asking them to change would be like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.
“I’m alright Jack”.
I would concur that ++Justin’s comments are a result of being supplied with faulty information, were it not for the fact that I have such behavior far too often in such cases, and in far too many churches. Indeed, to use an example close to home, my own case, the Diocese of Virginia has repeatedly said one thing to me, and something totally different to others, even going so far as to falsely tell members in writing that my concerns were :”investigated and resolved long ago.” So, I view ++Justin’s comments as outright lies.
It’s telling, too, that even now the ABC seemingly gives the IICSA process little respect, for it is missing altogether from his church feed, replaced with discussions about the Inquiry into the Persecution of Christians and a bunch of happy-clappy silliness about meetings, and youth, and other rather mundane topics. Why?
PS In my case, the Rev. Caroline Parkinson, a diocesan official, falsely claimed that my objections to the removal of my name from the church directory in retaliation for my original complaint had been addressed in July 2015. That is, however, a lie, as the issue did not come up until October 2015.
As I pointed out in my response to the diocese, I was not aware that one of the benefits of ordination is the ability to time travel.
If you want to see a real leader, watch out for Vivienne Neville, the author of “Set Adrift”!
I had an inspirational encounter with her when my son and I were travelling up North on a late night train last November. We were going to a family funeral and she’d just been to London to lobby the Bishops’ Visitors. The three of us started up one of those random stranger conversations. She shared with great courage the awful suffering of the spouses she represented. She engaged with us. She shared some of her own stuff too.
I just finished her book. She mentioned on the train that she was writing one and self-publishing. Brave, I thought.
Being British we didn’t go as far as to exchange names or details, but I made a mental note to watch out for her book. I’d been impressed by her championing her cause. There was also a strong intersection between her experiences and some of my own.
Last week was my birthday. My son gave me her book. I should add here that I had sent him my wish list!
Her story is full of grace and courage. She has had repeated and at times catastrophic setbacks, but there is no trace of bitterness, just a determination to prevent further clergy families being cast out on marital breakdown, without adequate provision.
Vivienne leads a community of broken people, like a true shepherd of lost sheep would. It has truly strengthened my own faith reading her work. She has begun to restore my hope in the people of God.
Her next book extends the experience she has of miracles. Normally I would run the other way, but in Vivienne’s case I am looking forward to it. One for the wish list!
A friend of mine used to be the person that spouses who were struggling were referred to. She never had a single referral. She just didn’t believe that no one in the diocese had any problems, so after five years she gave it up. She felt almost that she had been used to cover up inadequate provision.
Steve Lewis, thank you so much for such an encouraging post. I remember you both, and often thought about that conversation. It was a positive end to an important day for me.
Thank you for hearing the plight of clergy spouses and their children, and for reading the book and posting your response to it. I’m part of the community of clergy (and ex) spouses of which we are working and praying for an adequate “National Care Policy” in the Church of England. My book “Set Adrift” is my response to urgent reform that needs to happen in time hopefully to safeguard the clergy spouse and children on marital breakdown.
The book has so far been posted out to over 50 Bishops and Suffragan Bishops. The responses in their replies to me (10) have been very positive.
Throughout my book alongside the clergy spouse plight I weaved the reminder that, regardless of circumstances the continuous love and care of God is available to us all. The church is not perfect, none of us are perfect but we all expect to see and experience love, care and compassion from within the church. We can only be responsible for ourselves in showing the love of God to others. We cannot change another person, we can only change ourselves, it’s each individuals responsibility in the church especially to show the characteristics of Jesus to others.
I’m so glad that your own faith has been strengthened. That was a very important aspect also for me in writing the book because of the spiritual impact on people experiencing difficulties within the church, I wanted to reach those people also. So I’m very happy at the outcome for you personally.
Alongside the “catastrophic setbacks” were many miracles that could not have just been coincidence but God Incidences, and as you have said Steve those incidences are being written down now for the next book. “Set Adrift” brings a human plight, the next book brings God’s response within this particular plight.
Vivienne, I’ll have to read that when it comes out. I’ve seen a few miracles myself, though I tend to keep pretty quiet about them these days.
On one occasion my mother fed 4 adults and 4 hungry teenagers on a casserole only just big enough. for 6 people – and we all had second helpings. There was even some left over. My father had said grace and my mother said as she served it, it just never got any less. (My father was out of work at the time, we were in the USA where there was no unemployment benefit, and our guests showed up unexpectedly.)
It’s easier not to believe in modern miracles at all, than to account for the fact they happen so seldom.
Janet thank you for sharing your family miracle at a lean time on your families journey. That was an incredible miracle. That happened once to a couple I know, they had little food that particular day and unexpected visitors turned up they had no money for extra food but the little they had prepared never ran out that day, just as your family experienced.
When I went through a very lean time for a few years recently after living very comfortably all my life, my friend Jackie held the bible up in front of me and said “all the promises in this bible are for you now, you either believe them or you don’t” I chose to continue believing. When times came were I was in great need, I told no one and took those issues to God. He answered me over and over again in miraculous ways. Those as Steve said earlier in this thread “catastrophic situations” drove me to my knees many times at the mercy of God to answer those prayers and He always did.
I believe miracles happen a lot Janet but we just don’t talk about them. I’ve spoken about mine to close friends and they all have their own experiences of God moving in miraculous ways at times in their lives. I think we keep quiet about them because we are afraid of what people may think about us. I shared two miracles in my book “Set Adrift” but I was nervous at first putting out such personal experiences but those two miracles were so poignant in those very difficult years that I could not leave them out. If I did, I would be leaving out of my story and being ashamed to be real about God impacting my life at those two very important times.
You are right about the way w keep quiet about our miracles. In my case experience of the extremes of the Charismatic Movement, and especially Wimber’s Signs and Wonders, led to me keeping quiet on the whole subject.
We don’t talk about direct experiences of God either, for similar reasons.