Bullying in the Church

Stephen's Blog

by Martin Sewell

There was a time in the Church of England when Safeguarding was barely recognised as a problem. Whatever one thinks about the  current state of affairs in terms of efficiency, structure, focus or delivery, there can be little doubt that it is now a high priority area of concern with a substantial allocated budget to match. Every Parish and Diocese will have its officers and regular reports, and no PCC meeting or Synod meeting will pass without some reference being made to it.

An Independent Safeguarding Board is being established under a conscientious Chair: there is continuing controversy over its scope resourcing, powers and speed of delivery, but at the very least, one must acknowledge that there is a recognition of the need for continuing this as a “work in progress”.

But what of bullying in the Church – are we as clear cut in our thinking about this? Is there a difference between “strong leadership” and bullying? Do we have clear and robust policies impartially enforced against choir master and clergy alike? What can you do if the bullying is by one’s colleagues, the Bishop or the Diocesan staff – how easy is it in practice to secure redress in that instance?

Towards the end of the last General Synod quinquennial ( group of sessions) with one eye on the gathering storm at Christ Church Oxford, and the tragic death of Fr Alan Griffin, some of us made tentative enquiries about the place of bullying within our Guidelines for Clergy Conduct, only to learn that the  section referencing institutional bullying had been drafted  with a mindset directed towards the context of care homes rather than a deep sickness within the wider church or Diocesan culture. Bringing a Clergy Discipline complaint against a bullying culture is a task too far for most defeated and depressed clergy, a task akin to nailing jelly to a wall as matters stand. It is tough to prove, and it is frankly abuse stacked upon abuse to tell a clergy person to gird up their loins for another few round against an institution where it is virtually impossible to succeed against an abusive or neglectful bishop.

The Editor has received a challenge from a solicitor about the accuracy of some of the comments in the rest of the article. It seems prudent as Surviving Church does not carry insurance for this kind of challenge, to withdraw the contentious section. I had not spotted any offending material in the article but this severe pruning of the piece seems the safest thing to do. We hope that this withdrawal of Martin’s material may be a temporary action but I await clarification and advice from legal experts. The issues in the original article have not gone away! Watch this space.

About Stephen Parsons

Stephen is a retired Anglican priest living at present in Cumbria. He has taken a special interest in the issues around health and healing in the Church but also when the Church is a place of harm and abuse. He has published books on both these issues and is at present particularly interested in understanding how power works at every level in the Church. He is always interested in making contact with others who are concerned with these issues.

19 thoughts on “Bullying in the Church”

  1. In historic cases, or where there are no witnesses, how do complainants obtain justice? In the Church of England there still seems to be an embedded culture of not believing complainants.

    1. The problem is that the safeguarding process is limited to focus on current risk. There is no finding of fact made as to whether something happened or didn’t.
      This is true in my case, in Bishop Bell, in Percy’s. It is possible without witnesses to make a finding on the balance of probabilities, on belief in & credibility of testimony. Judges do this in child abuse cases.
      The church, presumably to avoid liability & reputational damage, has set up a system where it can deliberately avoid deciding what is true, or whether anything actually happened.
      Survivors are left feeling unheard, not believed, re-abused, not safeguarded. Abusers deemed not to pose a current risk and bishops who ignored the risk when it was reported, keep their PTO and face no consequence. CDMs are dismissed as out of time.
      The core group process as well as CDM needs major reform, as they both fail to deliver safeguarding and justice for survivors

      1. Thanks Jane. I agree. I have one vital missing piece of evidence and have been quoted £6,000 by a lawyer to obtain it. This wouldn’t be necessary if the abuser told the truth. I can’t afford that so will have to rely on other evidence.
        As I lay awake during the night thinking about this, I remembered some decades ago, I knew a senior clergyman who was arrested and charged with historic abuse. His accusers reported abuse to the police which had happened decades earlier. In the Magistrates Court he pleaded not guilty and the case was referred to the Crown Court. To anyone who would listen, he continued to protest his innocence. The accusers faced further months of agony, well aware of the coming ordeal. On the first day of the trial, he changed his plea. The impact on his supporters was devastating. It was his word against the accusers and the supporters had believed him. I wonder whether his occupation, status, sometime member of Synod, caused this deafness and blindness to the truth.

        1. Oh Petra, that’s horrible. It’s bad enough when there is no evidence just your word, but to know you cannot have have justice despite there being available evidence is devastating. As cdm proceedings keep being described to me as a legal process why is legal assistance not provided to both parties as it would be in a court case? You should have the same right to legal help and the acquisition of evidence as others involved in the legal system. The church wants to have it all ways, it keeps impressing on me there is a legal process, then gives no legal assistance, and when the Church acts in contravention of the process, you are simply expected to put up with it, something not easily got away with in a real court. I do hope you will receive justice one day.

    2. I have to be honest Petra and say that an unprovable case is just that plain and simple. It does the complainant no favours to hold out false hopes. No system is perfect. Pretending there is always a resolution in such cases can be in itself abusive.

      1. That doesn’t fit my situation. I’m constrained by what I can say. The evidence is there but I need the law to get it (including a court order in order for the information to be given to me). I can’t be more specific. With that evidence my case is absolutely provable.

        1. I “ get” what you say , though knowing none of the detail.
          If we had a proper independent system with investigatory powers I would hope cases like yours would at least get the chance of a fair hearing.
          The perception at present is that if
          “ the powers that be” like you you have a chance if they do not you will be obstructed. Where there is a discretion, it will be exercised capriciously.

          That cannot be right in a Church.

          We need proper independent external oversight. At present the ISB is not it.

  2. This deserves widespread notice. We have stopped the excuse of it s just banter in cases of discrimination and sexual harassment and the same must be done for bullying. Very glad to hear there has been some resolution for Kenneth and that he has been able to rejoin fellow parishioners. We must try to put an end to corrupt and inept processes. I have evidence to show misuse of power and authority does not stop at Bishop level. That won’t surprise readers of this blog. But there is movement. Let’s hope and pray for a landslide.

  3. Just read in the Church Times that Bishops are warning that public life and discourse are being corrupted! Physician, heal thyself.

  5. Pingback: Opinion – 23 April 2022 | Thinking Anglicans

    1. I’m always happy to proofread articles for SC. I was at one time a copy editor and still do some freelance work in that line – though I wouldn’t charge for SC.

  7. Whilst I would concur with an opinion expressed by Martin Sewell that all issues which arise within the current limited ambit of “Safeguarding” are in fact a form of bullying – i.e. the repeated exercise of unequal power with full awareness of the likely outcome of causing harm – we perhaps need to consider a new approach in which “safeguarding” is seen as the global response to bullying and that the abuse of minors and adults (and the Church of England utterly fails to properly understand the concept of “vulnerable” in the context of bullying) is a particular subset of abuse.
    My paper at http://ourchurchfiles.info/research/bullying_medical.pdf
    summarises the widespread evidence of the pyschological and physiological harm that bullying causes, and there is also research which shows that the effect on the recipient of the bullying behaviour is almost identical to that on a person who suffers sexual abuse. In other words, if “safeguarding” in the Church is supposed to be preventing physical and mental harm, then all bullying must form part of Safeguarding.
    At present, we have successfully raised the profile of abuse of minors and some vulnerable people and made it as societally unacceptable as drink-driving. Now we must widen our gaze to the hundreds of people who suffer bullying abuse in the church and find they are disregarded or brushed off.
    “Safeguarding” should not be the preserve of one small group. Safeguarding is about creating a Holy place where we can all commune with God free of corrupt and evil Pharisees and Sanhedrin who would be happy to spend money to murder Jesus.
    Sexual abuse is just one – albeit terrible – facet of this. Profiting in any way through the weakness of another person is a second facet. But Safeguarding is a polyhedron. A lot remains to be done. Any attempt to diminish any other facet as less important must be resisted at all costs. The Devil will exploit any such loopholes to continue to attack good and holy people.
    The Anti-Bullying Research Group ABEL is organising a free-to-attend online conference on this topic on the morning of 31 May. The brochure can be downloaded from
    http://abel.org.uk/docs/may2022.pdf

    1. My husband suffered great mental distress at work by a bullying superior, and would probably have had a mental breakdown if forced to continue to work under him. His superior was over promoted above his skill set, and greatly resented his more competent colleagues whilst simultaneously relying on them to get the job done well. As many Bishop’s seem to be over promoted …

  8. I wonder whether there is any news about the Independent Review commissioned by the London Diocese into the death of Fr Alan Griffin? As far as I can tell, the Review was announced in August 2021, with Terms of Reference published in September 2021 saying “The aim is for the Review to be completed by the end of December 2021” an “The Diocese of London will publish the Report promptly”. In December 2021 the Independent Reviewer, Chris Robson reported “that he is making good progress” with a further update to be provided in March. Since that time there has been neither update nor progress, at least in public.

    Is it too far-fetched to suggest that the Report will never be published, and that even if the Review is concluded it will have no practical effect on anything the Diocese does or does not do?

Comments are closed.