by some Survivors, Advocates and CampaignersÂ
Trust and Confidence in the leadership and hierarchy of the Church of England is irretrievably broken. Victims and Survivors of abuse, and those subject to falsified allegations, can obtain no truth, justice or mercy from the CofE. Its leadership is blind, deaf and dumb in the face of its incompetence, corruption and coverups. There is no sign of repentance, reparation or reconciliation. This is harming the work of local churches and ministries in other spheres. Yet the hierarchy remains aloof from accountability and independent scrutiny. Consequently, this is destroying morale across the entire ministry of the CofE. Without change, the crisis will continue and only deepen.
We call for personnel in Lambeth Palace and senior bishops to be removed from or withdraw from any involvement or responsibility in Church of England safeguarding, pending a fully independent and statutory inquiry into the coverups over abuse, expenditure on those coverups, and the systemic issues in governance that have led to such disgrace, public disgust and despair inside the church. It will be impossible for the CofE to recover public trust until then. If trust and confidence are to be restored in its leaders and any of its safeguarding work, we petition the following:
1 An immediate Statutory Independent Inquiry into the operations of Lambeth Palace, Church House Westminster, its officers, expenditure, and the entirety of its safeguarding work.
2 The immediate suspension from safeguarding duties of those bishops and church officers who also knew of the details of the Smyth case and have consistently obstructed further reviews into cases brought by victims and survivors.
3 The full and immediate adoption of the recommendations of the Jay Report, without interferences from those cited above, identified below[i]
4 The Redress Scheme chaired by the Bishop of Winchester, and Interim Support Scheme, handed over with immediate effect to a trusted independent third party.
5 Safeguarding in the Church of England to be subject to immediate professional, fully independent scrutiny and independent external regulation.
6 Victims of abuse, survivors, and those deliberately harmed by false accusations are to be fully and promptly compensated.
7 The Church of England’s hierarchy to adopt, without demur, all Nolan Principles for Public Life, the Freedom of Information Act (2000), the Data Protection Act (2018), statutory employment law and human rights law.
If the Church of England fails to adopt this Seven-Point Charter by the February 2025 meeting of the General Synod, we request that the HM Government immediately remove HMRC Gift-Aid Status from the Church of England and the Charity Commission forthwith withdraw charitable status from the Archbishops’ Council.
[i] The following need to step aside from all responsibility in safeguarding in the interim, and consider their positions: William Nye. The Lead Bishop for Safeguarding and the Director of the NST. The bishops of Lincoln, Oxford, Rochester and Guildford. The Archbishop of York. The Head of Legal Affairs at Lambeth Palace and the Provincial Registrar for the Southern Province. The Bishop for Episcopal Ministry in the Anglican Communion.
Unless there are names, even in the form of survivor 1, survivor 2 etc, attached to this charter then it should be made clear that this is from SOME survivors and advocates.
It is extremely disempowering to have groups of self appointed people write as though it is from everyone when in fact the vast majority will not have been consulted.
As a survivor I request that this is ammended.
Please don’t speak for me, I have a voice, if you talk for me without my permission then you make me even more invisible than the church has.
Thanks for your response. I do appreciate your point, Patricia, but advocates try to steer a difficult middle channel between two parallel rows of markers. ‘Do or say little or nothing’ allows cliques of church bullies to continue in ‘business as usual’ mode. Awaiting consensus, among victims from different eras and with various experiences, may be even worse. That may be tantamount to doing nothing, because absolute consensus on optimal response will vary, and victims will just prevaricate endlessly. I think victim testimony can be incredibly powerful. But a positive plan of action-key points to address- is also imperative.
For what it’s worth, the core issues for me are:-
1.) 2 Corinthians 13:1. The Church needs to follow the evidence of 2 or 3 witnesses, even if the result is sometimes uncomfortable for the institutional Church’s reputation. P250 on the Smyth report has a comment about making sure whistleblowers and witnesses get heard. Amen to that.
2) Let’s stop venerating Bishops. Bishops who cover up abuse are maybe a greater vulnerability than abusers or bullies. We can never exorcise the latter groups. But Ian Elliott (see Chapter 5, Letters to a Broken Church) notes how dealing with Episcopal cover ups needs to be central to cleaning up Anglicanism. Bishops who cover up scandals need to be removed. Amen to the career of any bishop found to be cynically covering up serious scandal.
3) Favours to family members and friends must stop. The Church is full of it. The Soul Survivor report on Mike Pilavachi refers to poor recruitment practice. A senior leader can easily surround themselves with servile lackeys. Anyone naming and shaming them then gets the DARVO treatment. (Deny-attack-reverse-victim and offender).
I think 2 Cor 13:1, Ian Elliott’s 4 page chapter and recognising favouritism biases (plus DARVO) are central planks to our initial mission for victims to get a fair hearing. Media and public awareness campaigns usually do best with a clear and condensed message. The legal and admin intricacies should not be allowed to drown out the core message which Anglicans and the wider public need to be hearing.
That’s my angle at the minute. Interested to hear what others think.
Unless I’ve missed something, Patricia didn’t appear to say: do / say little or nothing? Just: say “some” or a synonym?
Is a certain theologian in the above list under a different job title?
My skin in the game namely last four churches:
i – C of E and Vineyard combined at the tme, vicar suspended after I left – he was seriously at fault but atmosphere had frazzled our brains anyway; those remaining are in no better shape
ii – nonconformist, strongly influenced by C of E trends including frazzled brains
iii – Joint affiliation to Church Society-Bethel Redding-YWAM, vicar suspended after I left, those sharing blame still in place under a pall of depression though a good bishop did valiantly sort out as much as possible
iv – nonconformist, evidently about to be swamped by C of E leavers not clear about their own viewpoints or reasons
Your background experience in 4 churches is interesting. But what do you mean by ‘Is a certain theologian in the above list under a different job title?’
Some people had levelled a criticism at the role of one I.P?
Vineyard to their credit have stayed in lane in recent years. Pluralism that’s true to its own word is a blessing to the public. I’ve wider experience than those four.
Whether there is disestablishment or not, will country and backstreet parishes get their billions back, which we read about in these columns recently?
As a pew attender, it was OK to be easy with organisation issues at one time but nowadays it’s more responsible to get clued up.
Yes, indeed, final paragraph is what Anglicanism needs. People who “pay up and shut up” is no longer a viable response.
I agree with Patricia that such a Charter should come with an indication of who those are, that advocate for such far reaching actions.
Although neither a victim nor a survivor of abuse, I comment as one who is fearful of how parties within (and outside) the CofE are using the Makin and the current crisis to further their own cultural, theological and “political” positions, whatever form these may take.
Such actions do not respect and honour victims or aid addressing the current foundational issue of fostering a SAFE Church, for ALL who come within her walls and wider influence.
Yes, indeed structural safety for vulnerable adults and children but also that holy attitude that safeguards minds and souls formed in the image of Christ; from adverse, neglectful or malign influence or power.
I have been struck again how Advent is a season that not only looks to the coming of Christ but his coming again……perhaps those engaged with power play need to reminded of this but victims also encouraged!
James, thank you for your response if not action, if you are one of the authors of the charter. I was not going to respond further but I find something you have written to be deeply disturbing, if you are as you claim, an advocate.
You state ‘victims will just prevaricate endlessly.’
The definition given in various recognised dictionaries for the word prevaricate is ‘to be evasive of the truth.’ As an advocate are you saying you do not believe the victims you advocate for, or with such a sweeping statement as you have made, any victim?
I find the statement you have made to be offensive and also troubling if you feel it is then acceptable to dictate a course of action because victims are not to be believed.
It’s a question of semantics, Patricia. Whether it is individual victim testimony, or coordinated action, clarity and brevity are essential. We cannot afford to beat about the bush or procrastinate endlessly. That’s my point. It’s not my intent to suggest there is lying. It is my point to suggest we learn from successful campaigns by other groups. Getting the core messages right, in this age of very low attention span, is really vital. The enemies of victims are clever and astute. We need to discuss our responses, and carefully measure up our engagement. The situation resembles apologetics and evangelism. We need to closely look at the tactics used in Church cover ups if we are to bring positive change. We also need to apply ‘the rules of evidence’.
‘We need to discuss our responses,’ James!
No one has even had the backbone to take ownership of the charter. Currently it is just an anonymous, autocratic piece of rhetoric that can easily be consigned to the bin.
I will leave the matter there.
This is clearly labelled “by some survivors, advocates and campaigners” making clear that they are not speaking for all. Good for them. I was not party to this, but agree with them and thank them for putting it together. They are fully entitled to their anonymity and Stephen is careful about the postings. All those who disagree are equally welcome to say so, but the heading makes clear this is the view of some, not all.
Thank you for adding ‘some’.
In fairness to the authors, they are not writing up a formal ‘charter’ as senior Church managers or Church legal representatives. It’s a proposal for discussion-consideration really, is surely implicit.