by Gilo
The bishops have not had to deal with anything like the current situation before. Tectonic plates have never shifted as dramatically and suddenly as in this past month. One Archbishop has resigned (historic event in itself) closely followed by calls for the second Archbishop to follow. And in the midst of these seismic events, a courageous diocesan Bishop is making any amount of serious waves. Bishops have not had to face this previously. Alan ‘Elbows’ Wilson could easily be dismissed by the hierarchy as a beardy weirdy – when he had more courage, integrity and a mind for justice than the rest of the bishops put together. A few retired bishops have spoken out (notably Pete Broadbent) but no diocesan has had the presence of mind to speak out against their own failed and dysfunctional culture. It’s clear her peers view the Bishop of Newcastle as someone they need to freeze out … in much the same way that many bishops have repeatedly blanked survivors and our complaints. It’s a pattern many of us have experienced. The blanking and suspension in a vacuum has sadly changed little in the response of some bishops across the past decade.
I suspect the women in the episcopacy are mostly grateful that they’ve managed to be accepted into the old boys club, and firmly hoovered up into the establishment (the Bishop of London is a case in point). They have spoken out hardly at all. I often wondered why Viv Faull didn’t speak out more. A bishop with more of a brain on her than many of her colleagues; and enough experience of the shadow side of the institution to have been a powerful voice for change. She has always stood some way apart from the rest of the bishops and been her own person. But she bottled out at a crucial stage… or more likely was silenced? She started speaking out in 2019 but was quickly put back in her box, presumably by the Nyebots or by whoever happened to be the ‘whip’ Bishop at the time.
The bishops have never known how to speak ‘corporate transparency’. They’ve always assumed the Centre or the Top would speak it for them. We’ve seen centralised contrition issued from both Archbishops in the past, which has been empty of real meaning while the structure continues to treat necessary questions and legitimate complaints in ways that demonstrate reputation management is still to the fore in the mindset of the hierarchy. Plenty of bishops, probably most if not all, have been aware of this institutional disparity but have preferred to remain mute. A big problem in my view, alongside the culture of fear which the Bishop of Newcastle rightly points to in the bishops – is the pattern of behaviours that arise from siloed thinking. As long as me and my diocese are OK. The bishops find it very difficult to take responsibility for their collective culture. Each individual Bishop has tended to only worry about their patch. Some are good and decent. Others are disaster areas. Some are kindly disposed and some are disposed to cruelty. And up until recently any Bishop wanting to make any kind of safeguarding statement or do any safeguarding-related interview had to go via the dreaded comms in Church Hse. Even national media had to go via Nye’s apparatchik. Everything has been centralized to enable the Nyebots to better control narrative and manage reputation.
Another major problem facing the Church: whose hands exactly are on the levers of change? Are there any levers? Certainly not been the lead bishops’ hands. When they’ve tried to effect change they’ve discovered they have nothing much more than rubber levers to play with which spring back into starting position. Some lead bishops have found themselves thwarted by Nye and/or Lambeth Palace in the past. Some of us remember the frustration and anger of Peter Hancock when he was Lead at finding that Lambeth Palace could organise an interview with Justin Welby without letting him know. An interview which then contained a range of significant untruths about the Smyth case.
Why have the bishops collectively not been able to shape effective levers and insist that Nye and any others blocking progress get out of the way. Nye and his court have been a significant hindrance to the Church responding well. Why have/are the bishops so slow in recognising this. Why are they so muzzled by fear? Is it because they have to go mitre in hand to the centre for funding and dare not speak out of turn lest the Welby/Nye axis cut off vital payment for diocesan projects?
Perhaps it suited the bishops to be lazy in their siloed mindset. It’s convenient to let the status quo remain unchallenged, because the hierarchy is protected by that status quo. Privilege and power are maintained. But that’s all changing rapidly now. Newcastle is identifying so many aspects of the low-grade culture of the bishops, which makes it much easier for the media to bring a necessary spotlight to that culture. There are likely to be several stories coming which provide further evidence of the dysfunctional culture. I don’t think the media will tire yet. They will eventually, but in the meantime it’s open season.
So with this as the current and inevitable backdrop post the crisis of Welby – it ought to be fairly easy for enlightened and savvy bishops (yes a few do exist) to get together and accelerate change. Really push together on the slow old lawnmower engine of this rickety structure to accelerate the pace of things. Perhaps to come up with a shared vision mapped out – of the Church they want to be, the response to survivors they want to be, and the kind of redemption and repentance they would wish to see embodied by themselves and the wider Church.
But then why aren’t we seeing any of them come alongside Newcastle’s statements in support? Why aren’t any of them even name-checking her? Praising some of her insights? Her colleagues are carefully stepping around her as if she’s not there. A deeply transgressive presence who they all avoid … rather in the way that the religious leaders avoided consorting with the ragged and disturbing prophet of Galilea.
What or who are they all frightened of? Are they frightened of each other? It seems a limp culture behind the purple enclosure. The sky’s not going to fall in any further… the sky has already fallen in! The wisest of them must surely recognise this, so why have they so little courage to match that of the Shepherdess of the North?
The other thing which needs constant repeating in the midst of all this episcopal fear is around mandatory reporting. The Church hasn’t much hope as an institution of stepping off the scandal merry-go-round until MR is in place in the statutory framework. For some reason bishops aren’t getting this, don’t want to get it. I notice some of them mouthed the words in their post-Makin statements. But it’s difficult to really know what they mean when the words ‘mandatory reporting’ are given little real context. The words have lost their meaning as Tom Perry recently said to me. The bishops have the perfect opportunity to support exactly the bill needed as it travels through parliament. Tanni Grey-Thompson’s bill is the Church’s hope for the future and will empower the institution to deliver one-Church safeguarding clearly and without any of the confusion we’re still seeing manifested. Why the bishops aren’t 100% behind this is a mystery to me. It’s really in their interest to bring the Church publicly and fully behind this bill with their support.
I have argued previously for the planning of a Truth and Reconciliation process. But am not particularly surprised the Church has put zero preparation into this as part of the Redress Scheme. Has this been a canny move by the Archbishops Council to delay the scheme? Or is this too much conspiracy theory? Sometimes supposed conspiracy is better viewed as incompetence and shallow thinking. But on bad days I fear that any means fair or foul will be employed to delay the actual start of the Redress Scheme. Why would it be otherwise? This is the Church of England which delays every promise. Like others, my trust in this institutional hierarchy is low. And my trust in anything from Archbishops Council is zero. In my view, they should be removed from the frame. I agree with Helen-Ann of Newcastle – the top tier including Church Hse, both Palaces, the offices of Archbishops, entire NCIs – should be placed into Special Measures. That’s how serious I think it is for the Church at this juncture. There will not be real willingness to change until the Church sets about finding and making leadership structures dedicated to transparency and integrity and accountability. At present the old dispensation will cleave to power. But it needs to go, so a higher grade culture might hopefully take their place. Under current leadership it is clear that the Church of England is not fit to be in any sense the national Church, and unfit to be part of the legislature in the House of Lords. The deep soul sickness manifested by the Church across the past decade and longer, cannot be redeemed until the quiet corruption of protectionism is a thing of the past. If you want to find the locus of that protectionist culture, look behind the walls of Church House, Westminster. And Bishops, wake up to the new reality and start showing considerably greater courage and visible determination to address your own collective cultures of fear, power politics and dysfunction.
Gilo
Co-editor, Letters to a Broken Church
Co-creator, House of Survivors website
The bishop of Newcastle is leading. She demonstrates the simple principle that you don’t need to be the head man to facilitate change in your organisation, nor even a man. Conversely the archbishops have been more or less hopeless.
It’s less about intelligence and qualifications, although Newcastle has an abundance obviously, but more about having a spine and great courage.
I’ve argued against her being forced to be the new Archbishop of Canterbury, not least because she doesn’t want it she tells us, but because a superimposition of a huge burden of administrative and ceremonial responsibility she doesn’t need, and would perhaps stifle her. Not that she couldn’t do it of course.
Moreover, I’m not sure we need it either. People aren’t going to like the following, so brace yourselves, here goes: Let’s abolish the majority of the bishop level, including at least one AB. Let’s also abolish central command and control (“Nye-dom”). We can’t afford Church House when clergy have been forced into massively coalesced mega parishes.
No organisation except the Church spares its central services from periodic cuts and restructuring. Businesses do it all the time. It’s not pleasant, but often necessary. The central funds of the Commissioners can be devolved and reallocated as follows: First dibs, an independently run restoration fund for survivors of clerical abuse.
Ceremonial flummery such as attendance at State functions can be divvied up among persons of standing within the church, if it is to remain a State Church. A state banquet at Buckingham Palace was recently attended by persons of standing David and Victoria Beckham, when we were hosting Qatar. I’m sure we’ll have no difficulty finding people. I nominate Rev Richard Coles and Rev Alex frost. These people represent us.
Since Welby resigned, it’s made no material difference. I don’t see the loss of his and other central functions as anything people fighting to survive on a parish level haven’t had to deal without every day for years.
Let’s do it.
Gilo,
It’s really very simple for Bishops.
All they need to do is to demonstrate Servant Leadership (set out very clearly in the Gospels) and just ‘do the right thing’.
It’s not rocket science.
They don’t even have to read their bibles, there is a living demonstration in Newcastle.
But apparently that’s beyond 106 out of 107 Bishops (or whatever the exact numbers are), beyond the entire Archbishops’ Council, beyond the NST & Lead Safeguarding Bishops, & beyond >95% of General Synod.
They’ve had more than four decades to sort out historic safeguarding abuse within the Church, and every time they’ve bottled it through self-interest, deference & to protect the ‘good’ name of the C of E, of Iwerne Trust, of ECW, of Soul Survivor, of CEEC, of Peter Ball, of Blackburn Cathedral, of the ‘evangelical work’, of Chichester Diocese, of Titus Trust, of Chelmsford Diocese, of my mate from Theological college 40 years ago, of Archbishops Welby, Cottrell, Carey, Sentamu etc. etc.
Of course the real tragedy is that the greatest good news on Earth that has been handed down to us and which we have a duty and love to share with others is being completely drowned out by the repeated & ongoing very public failings of the C of E hierarchy in December 2024.
As all of us who’ve been round the Church for more than 5 mins well know, only the tiny tip of the C of E safeguarding iceberg is yet in the public domain. If anyone thinks it’s bad at the moment, there is a very great deal more coming.
When will the Hierarchy start looking down the right end of the telescope for a change?
I may not be a total fan-girl of the Bishop of Newcastle, but the time had come for a voice that called out the crisis: and specifically, the fact that this is no longer a case for sticking plasters and polite niceties, but a compelling moment crashing down on the Church and demanding radical change. There needs to be a recognition that from the top down there’s a problem (however faithful many parish safeguard leads have been), and that a serious part of the problem is culture and frameworks of leadership, reluctance to act radically, or take personal responsibility for negligence, along with the continued attempts of some to ‘control narrative’ and ‘limit damage’, to rule ‘top down’, to slow and delay process where convenient, to pressure colleagues to conform.
So, like her or not, the Bishop of Newcastle becomes a lived enactment and example of how church cultures (and colleagues) resist the person who does not play by their own etiquettes… but calls for more radical action. More radical action was needed all down the line in too many safeguarding cases. Radical action out of safeguarding compassion. We all know our Lord Jesus was radical. The Church of England much less so.
We have an entrenched culture problem at the top of the Church, that merits clear out. The huge issue now is not only safeguarding failures, but the PERCEPTION that Church safeguarding is not safe. And perception really matters. The Church is seen as defending its own, and having inadequate processes and structures to bring about truly radical change. At the moment the media is having to take the lead because the Church can’t/won’t take/make radical actions themselves. Look how it just shrugged and moved on from the shocking ISB fiasco. We have an emergency… an almost existential crisis… and whether I agree with all Helen Ann says/does or not, at least she is not shoring up the status quo.
The Church’s culture and the self-endorsing complacency/ circle of self-entitlement at the top has led to the public perception that we cannot be trusted and that *perception* and collapse of trust in itself justifies resignations and radical demonstration of change and remorse. It’s not just individual cases, it’s an accumulative thing that has brought things to this point. It was time for Justin to leave, not because of specifics of one case, but because of an accumulation of safeguarding issues that had led to the haemorrhaging of trust.
People in the ‘inside’ of the culture just don’t seem to ‘get’ how it is failing, or how they themselves may be (collectively) the problem (not just as individuals but rather as an organisation that buys in to its own structures and ways of operating/perpetuating/knowing best at the top). The perception of Church failure, and huge loss of trust and confidence, whether fair or not, cries out for more radical voice and critique, not only to challenge individuals but to signal a need for clear out, for radical changes, and it’s sad if such voices are marginalised because things can’t go on as before. The country is disgusted.
The ‘in crowd’ goes on and on, with ‘lessons learned’, and resistance to radical change, avoidance of accountability… and maybe, like her or not, the Bishop of Newcastle dares to be ‘out crowd’ and ‘Jenny-no-friends among her peers’… or almost no friends because people like Julie Conalty (another awkward woman) have also shown the guts to veer off from the pack and speak with decency and challenge.
Things are being driven by media because the Church can’t drive itself out of its own morass of successive safeguarding failures, its resistance to Jay recommendations, its total car crash over the ISB and what that did to survivors in that fiasco, its sitting on the collapsing fence over human sexuality, its alienation of the public, and the way it is careering onwards demographically with a country that has largely shrugged and despised what it perceives as a self-absorbed, unsafe, still discriminatory Church… and someone should not dare to speak out and rock the boat? It needs rocking. It needs cultural, organisational change because at present it is crashing in so many ways.
And change can indeed come. Change feeds up from the roots. And Jesus is the root, the stump from which always new life and grace can spring. It’s important not to forget that. Right now we need grace and prayer for those under pressure in a time of crisis. And grace and prayer right down at the roots level of parish life, where many parishioners are dazed and saddened, perplexed and confused… or just carry on giving their kindness to the community, person by person… which is the very best part of the Church. In a way, those parishioners ARE the Church… more vital to its future than those who perpetuate some power structure up above them. Reformation can only really come when they are afforded more central say in how – in their communities – they open to the Love of God and devote their lives.
There is SO much goodness and compassion in the Church, and that is what makes what has gone on above them very sad. Jesus never gives up. Day by day, the light of Jesus is coming into our world, urging us to devote ourselves, to open our hearts to the flow of God’s Love. So we should never lose heart, but right now the Church of England is in crisis. Arranging deck chairs, speaking in niceties, shushing awkward voices… I think that’s symptomatic… but not what’s needed. ‘In quietness and trust’… but not in stifled silence… ‘for Zion’s sake…’
There are a few hidden gems in the manure heap! The positive role of women in leadership is to be celebrated. The collapse of old boy networks is excellent. The shift to independent inquiry processes (into abuse or bullying and harassment) will now inevitably accelerate. A Harold Shipman type tipping point is already upon us. A ‘Boston tea party’ moment threatening diocesan finances may produce benefit over a longer period. I think there are arguments to remain as an Anglican, but perhaps with some interest in Anabaptist ideas. Apostle’s Creed Anglicanism, with a strong focus on NT teachings and doctrine has merit. The amateurism of diocesan safeguarding, by unqualified bishops and their inept teams, can no longer be defended or hidden. We need legal professionals overseeing independent processes. A church spending a billion on absurd slavery reparations (or other woke stunts) can surely afford this.