Before the July General Synod in York, I attended a secular wedding where the young ring bearer shyly approached the front of the gathering . To ease his nerves, the civil celebrant reverted to humour ; “ It’s alright son, you’re safe with me – I am not a real priest”.
Everyone laughed. I laughed too, even as I winced at the very low regard which ordinary people were comfortable to be publicly exhibiting at the mention of what a real priest represents in most people’s minds today. The witty quip works in the public sphere, because, sadly, real priests are no longer trusted (c.f., Church Times, https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/4-december/news/uk/public-trust-in-the-clergy-has-dramatically-decreased-in-recent-years-survey-finds).
As a member of the General Synod of the CofE for ten years, I was part of a body bearing a share of responsibility for that decline; during my term of office safeguarding scandal after scandal hastened the collapse in public opinion. In helping to bring those scandals to the attention of Synod members I had played a part in dragging the truth into the public domain thereby hastening the nation’s falling out of love with the Church. Yet these horror stories were only “the canary in the mine” signalling danger. As I lay my burden of responsibility down, here are my reflections on some of the other ongoing causes.
The late Queen was unquestionably committed to the health of the Church of England, but we now have a Supreme Governor who seems happier to commend the merits of other faiths. He has not yet visited the elected institution which significantly oversees the Established Church in his name.
His own well documented support for one of principal abusers – Bishop Peter Ball – is an awkwardness for him, but it might have been overcome with humility and honesty. However the institution he leads does not prioritise either in any real sense. When failure is identified the buck stops nowhere from top to bottom.
In 2018 a number of us sought to set out the multi-dimensional character of the Churches problems as viewed through the lens of those seeking justice transparency and accountability. Within the National Church. We did so in a book named Letter to a Broken Church. Looking back we were incredibly naive. We believed that if only people with knowledge experience and professional experience put the issues into the public domain the Church Authorities, Parliament and the public would be able to see the full depth of the problems. We hoped there would then be a serious engagement and a purposeful rectifying of the fundamental weaknesses that had facilitated both the harm and the cover-ups.
I think I first realised the complexity of our task when in the middle of addressing Synod at the Question and Answer session, I found myself stumbling across the question “Where does the buck stop?” nobody had an answer, and neither did I, so I began looking.
With the help of colleagues I realised that amongst the “McCavities” who are “never there” to own responsibility of failures are – the Archbishops, the House of Bishops, the Archbishops Council, the Secretary General, the Synod itself, its Standing Orders Committee, its Audit Committee, the establishments at Lambeth Palace and Church House, the Canon Law and its benefitting legal servants, the Charity Commission, and the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament.
At every turn, whether we are talking error , misjudgement, constitutional log jam, or , as some say, moral failure and/or corruption, there is an entrenched culture of plausible deniability. This is not the time to set out the evidence for this proposition; a simple Grok search will deliver multiple examples from this and other Blogs which have assiduously catalogued the problems in detail over the last decade. Their record of service to victims and the truth far exceeds that of the various responsible bodies of the National Church.
Some may wish to use the comment section to record which issues strike them as especially egregious.
Few invested within these structures are willing to speak openly with similar clarity, but many would be surprised at how many – and who – is willing to privately acknowledge that this most establishment of institutions is deeply dysfunctional in the face of the moral challenges it has faced.
A number of conscientious Synod members have confided in me that they have had enough and will not seek re-election; this is a disaster. When historic memory departs the culture of dysfunctional accountability will renew its confidence and dominance to the detriment of good governance.
A few Synod voices ended up expressing what others could not or would not say; it has not always been comfortable and whilst I saw a useful role, I remained. I no longer see that as a viable option. Synod is plainly part of the problem and not part of the solution. A few recent examples of will briefly illustrate.
In York this year following the death of Audit Committee member Clive Billeness I sought to finalise his work by raising issues he had told me he had intended to attend to immediately before he died.
Victims were getting no answers to legitimate questions about monies attributed to the; complaints against the Secretary General had disappeared without trace, credible evidence of impropriety in the presentation a document presented in legal proceedings had been detected by Clive in the exercise of his professional skills and his warnings were being ignored. The report f the Audit Committee rested on the authority of one member of Archbishops’ Council ( The body being audited) and a single elected member; he reported that the independent members had resigned but explanation was offered as to why and most extraordinary of all, he was flippantly incurious.
A “following motion” to ask that when brought up to strength the audit committee should revisit Clive’s concerns and report; although unusual. This it was in order having been approved through the legal office – very helpfully.
Yet again, the issue was timetabled late in the evening and again a member of the Standing Order Committee preferred to play what we simple Child Protection lawyers used to call “silly buggers” “Next business” was called before anyone had an opportunity to explain the merits of the case. The vote was taken without the serious merits of the case being heard.
Although I have already decided I would be resigning, this confirmed the wisdom of my decision. I am convinced that Synod is not a place where serious reform has any prospect of being initiated from the grass roots, and much of the superstructure of power is as complicit in the injustices as our victims are telling us.
One small additional anecdote; Clive was so concerned at the rational inexplicability of some attitudes and outcomes, that he had begun to seriously consider the influence of Freemasonry. He had acquired the forty year old report to Synod which had overwhelmingly accepted and expressed concerns at its influence. Freemasonry has traditionally had strength within the cultures of the Law, the Civil Service, some parts of the Church and the police (from whom many safeguarding advisors are drawn – all of which are “in the mix” in the eyes of reformers like myself.
I asked a Synod question on what happened to the report – and the response from the Bishop of Europe was not dismissive but he lightly confessed that he had had trouble locating it – which raised a few smiles. Suffice it to say – and without breaking confidences – I was surprised at who sought me out to confess that they too shared Clive and my concerns. I hope somebody picks up the baton. But I doubt this will happen. Freemasonry is not something that those running the agenda of General Synod really want discussed. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
More generally, we often hear that “Synod is over managed” – it is a common internal complaint. “The same people get called to speak”; “ I never get called in debate”; at Synod Q&As, questions are evaded – “they treat us like fools as if we don’t notice” etc.
So 18 months ago, I and a few others called a meeting of the House of Laity to offer everyone and anyone a chance to set out their grievances and above all to listen. There was no mono directional motion. It was timetabled for late in the evening and many absented themselves. After one dissenting voice was called and declared “ We can discuss this down the pub” a canny member of the Standing Order Committee moved “next business” it was carried so the debate ended. No supportive voice from the floor got a word in. There was frustration and anger at the game playing on display.
Did we all “go down the pub”? Did we discuss it outside of our circle of friends: did we hear from those outside our “tribe”. The initiative was killed off by shallow naivety and gamesmanship from the establishment.
As for myself , now that I have time on my hands I am free to indulge a separate passion – to learn to play guitar in the “gypsy jazz” style of Django Reinhardt – an equally challenging task to reforming the CofE.
I am however encouraged by a superb mentor who not only can hold his own with the world’s greatest players, but is acknowledged to be one of the finest teachers in the genre. It is refreshing to work with those who know what they are doing.
As he unpacks the mysteries of crafting a limitless flow of complex innovative improvisations, he breaks his approach down into small steps and principles – the motif, the minor 6th arpeggio, the “quotation” etc . His zen like mantra is always “This is simple – but difficult”.
The Established Church is utterly in love with its “special” status; outsiders disturbing its sustaining of complexity are to be resisted by all means possible. It will not change easily. I have come to realise that the remedy is indeed “simple- but difficult”
I confess that I have become a late convert to the view that putting this right will only begin with the root and branch reform that would follow disestablishment of the Church of England. Nothing less will suffice. Only that end will, finally, place the Church of England under the same laws that govern every other person and institution.
Disestablishment will stop the Church of England being “a law unto itself”, marking its own homework on safeguarding, perpetrating discrimination, abusing HR, ignoring employment law, and otherwise “straining the gnat whilst swallowing the camel” (Mt.23: 24). That day cannot come quickly enough.
You tried Martin. Thank you.
Kind regards
Steve
“Freemasonry is not something that those running the agenda of General Synod really want discussed. You can draw your own conclusions from that.”
Well said. In fact, Bishop Julie Conalty has expressed concerns over this in a letter cited last year on this blog site. The same concerns are also raised in the ‘Speaking Truth to Power’ essay in ‘The Journal of Anglican Studies’. See: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-anglican-studies/article/abs/speaking-truth-to-power-structures-integrity-and-identity-in-ecclesiology/44CE04F8C213707D5861BD54EE43316E
It is hard not to conclude that the culture of leadership being run by senior officers and lawyers in Church House and Lambeth Palace is not mired in freemasonry. Several bishops also seem to have very close ties with such fraternities, and it is no surprise that they conspire to kick the whole debate into the long grass. They hide in plain sight.
The corruption and nepotism that these individuals model make it utterly impossible to trust the leadership of the church. With such people running the CofE, it deserves to fail. Thank you, Martin, for such an excellent article.
A regional Freemasons’ meeting was recently held at Chester Cathedral. Was this appropriate?
No
Was it this one? https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/cheshire-freemasons-mark-300th-anniversary-with-grand-celebrations-in-historic-chester. “The day’s proceedings will commence with a Service of Thanksgiving at Chester Cathedral.”
The roll call of voting to move to next business rather than consider Martin’s motion is now available online, see links on ThinkingAnglicans
We maybe jump too quickly to ‘solutions’ as Anglicans. The power dynamic between diocese vs. parish is important. The diocesan contribution on parish accounts tells a tale. Power in the diocese, and parish disempowerment, is important. Abuse, bullying and harassment can be much more easily covered up, if protection systems are neither local nor independent.
The sideswipe at The King is unwarranted but this heartfelt testimony has a sense of truthfulness. I wonder that bishops can sleep at night.
“I wonder that the bishops sleep at night.” They’re asleep all the time. They’ve been euthanised by Wm Nye, and complicit in their own Somnolence. Do any of them ever sound awake? They’re all dosed up on thin mission-speak. I feel waves of tiredness and nausea at every pronouncement they make.
Hardly a sideswipe. King Charles as the supreme governor of the church of england is in a far better position than many of us to make the changes that are so desperately needed at this time. Worldly law has its place but so does Godly law.
I agree. It could be argued that the then Prince of Wales was groomed by Peter Ball.
Thank you Martin for all you have done. Having support from yourself, Clive and others has done much to give credibility to the claims of survivors. I hope you will enjoy your free time, much deserved. I too came to the conclusion that freemasonry in the Church and Police was at work for the same reasons you outlined. Just simply the bare faced way that both abusers and those enabling abusers to get away with their abuse, expect that they can carry on in similar fashion is very revealing. Our former Archbishop doing the rounds loudly proclaiming that Makin was wrong is just another aspect of an establishment figure rewriting the truth in an attempt to massage the message to one more convenient to himself. And if, as he claims, he found the number of safeguarding complaints to be overwhelming, why did he not himself bring this to the attention of Synod and prioritise the claims of survivors. Instead we heard numerous complaints that cdms were apparently “sitting” on his desk. And the priorities of our other Archbishop were revealed when we learnt that he publicly praised a paedophile priest over whom he had authority. Just two of many, many criticisms levelled at our most senior clergy and officials which, to my mind encapsulate the contempt shown for the safety of vulnerable parishioners. The fact that incidents such as these, and the ignoring of Clive’s professional concerns, which are in plain sight, reveals that those that involved believe that nothing can touch them, in spite of the very occasional person they throw under a bus when public opinion cannot be ignored. As you say, Synod is part of the problem, as are indeed all the structures. Challenge has only come from individuals, I can’t think of a single part of the structure, seriously challenging the Church in safeguarding, with the exception of the ISB who were promptly sacked for their efforts. Of course the whole point of a series of complex structures, largely unaccountable, is that there is nowhere for the buck to stop. There are just a few individuals challenging the Church such as the Bishop of Newcastle and a few others, but there is not a single part of the structure, such as say, NST, Archbishops, or Bishops Council who will say the buck stops with them. This enables a corrupt and incompetent system to continue ad infinitum. Sadly jokes such as the one you mention prolifiate. The other day I overheard a similar joke which was made when it was said that someone whose surname was Bishop wanted to join a club to which I belong. I pity those clergy of integrity. They are now held in contempt by the public, and are forced to put up with the lack of integrity of the institution they serve and its leadership. Perhaps someone needs to whisper in the ear of church leaders that the putting on of an embroidered dress and hat and making moral pronouncements when the very platform on which they stand is, let us say quite a lot lower then the moral high ground they espouse, is simply making themselves daily look more and more ridiculous. Rev Paula Vennels was made to understand how she was viewed when she was both laughed at and vilified during the Post Office inquiry. Freemasonry cannot shield either the Church or Police from public disgust. Neither are now trusted by large swathes of the public. They may never win back the good opinion of decent citizens whose own behaviour and integrity is of a much higher standard.
Dear Martin,
Thank you for going the extra mile for survivors and for bringing so many things into the light.
My central question remains: why is there still no safeguarding policy publicly visible from the Freemasons, especially given the long-standing involvement of Scouts, CCF members, choirboys, and others in Masonic events? I recall, along with other choirboys, being made to sing late into the night at Masonic dinners—events often accompanied by heavy drinking. There was a strong sense of imbalance in power that many have simply ignored.
Years ago, I organised a church event attended by around 30 Freemasons out of a 100-person congregation. It prompted some honest and deep discussion. One attendee, Ian Gordon—a senior figure from Lloyd’s—later wrote a book about his journey into and out of Freemasonry. His story is quite striking:
In his book The Craft and the Cross
His first initiation had seen the removal of the blindfold and the rope about his neck. As a Freemason (he was assured) he had come into the light, and the path ahead promised further wisdom and knowledge. Years later his second initiation brought him through the waters of Christian baptism, into a new life without secret gatherings and esoteric teaching. Masonry had revealed its true nature. What had happened to turn Ian Gordon around so dramatically? He had risen to successive levels in the Craft and the Holy Royal Arch – could the things he had discovered really be so unacceptable? After all, he had been in several of the ‘Christian orders’. Hadn’t he?
http://www.truthmagazine.com/archives/volume24/TM024277.html
Many join the Craft without fully understanding what it entails. I wonder whether there is scope for a service or a series of workshops—spaces where Freemasons and others can process, reflect, and (if they wish) find healing or deliverance from spiritual influences they may not have initially recognised.
It’s also worth questioning the use of Cathedrals for Masonic services. Given the secrecy, oaths, and the nature of Masonic rituals—many of which appear incompatible with Christian doctrine—how do such services align with the Church’s teachings on the Trinity, particularly the Holy Spirit?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/church-of-england-defends-cathedral-services-for-freemasons-5798r87pg
https://onepeterfive.com/freemason-service-englands-mother-church-day-consecration-lady/
https://www.ugle.org.uk/about-us/ugle-governance#:~:text=The%20Duke%20of%20Kent%20was%20initiated%20as%20a%20Freemason%20in,of%20the%20Lodge%20in%201965.
Some also note the financial influence at play. Are liturgies carefully worded not to offend potential donors? It’s fair to ask: if Freemasons already have dedicated temples like the one in Queen Street, why is there a need for Church-based services at all?
Of course, not all Freemasons are bad people. Many are sincere. But the spirit of Freemasonry is what many Christians question—particularly as testimonies emerge from those who’ve found renewed spiritual freedom after leaving.
I was once told by a former Freemason (now a Church of England vicar) that the teachings in the higher degrees—particularly the 15th to 17th—conflict with core Christian beliefs. That’s the tension: worshipping both “The Grand Architect” and the God of the Bible.
Its also time the Met rid themselves of the spirit of Freemasonry. Early experiences leave their mark.
https://www.richmondandtwickenhamtimes.co.uk/news/10816980.former-richmond-policeman-angry-at-lack-of-internal-complaints-procedure/
Happy Christmas 🎄
Freemasonry has been crumbling and is dying. Secretive cliquish dominance of people is unattractive. The institutional Church has a similar problem. People deprived of a democratic vote with their hands inevitably choose to vote with their feet…..Hardly surprising!
Freemasonry is alive and actively kicking at Lambeth Palace and Church House Westminster. It is hard-wired into the senior officers, church lawyers etc. An external audit would reveal this. Clive Billenness (RIP) called for this audit.
It will never happen as long as the officials remain in post on the north and south banks of the Thames. The legal officers vetting the agenda for General Synod will never allow the question to be raised, let alone debated. That tells you all you need to know. Those setting the agenda have the most to lose by the matter being discussed. So it won’t be.
Secrecy is the ingredient which makes Anglican maltreatment of people possible. It’s a pity more members are not aware of it.
They are aware. But such is the pitiful state of the CofE, the bishops, clergy and key laity lack the moral courage to raise so much as a finger in protest. Mr. Nye runs the entire operation. He answers to nobody, and bishops walk in fear of his shadow. He decides who gets hung out to dry and who has guaranteed and permanent immunity. Nobody is in any kind of position in the CofE without his say-so. Cross him, and you’re crossed out. The leadership of the CofE has obliged him and kicked out the dissidents and the prophets, and any who might stand up to Nye. The entire charade has become a dark farce.
Since we have lost Clive Billeness we really need Cathy Newman, channel 4 to take this up.
Secular media groups-but arguably influenced by liberal Western values connected to our ancient Church heritage-are often the best hope for victims, witnesses and whistleblowers. As you rightly say, no amount of other efforts matched getting Cathy Newman from Channel 4 onto the trail of John Smyth QC. Our social media and internet dominated world thrives on hyperbole. But there is a time when the very bluntest of language is very necessary. The Anglican cover up of BAH (bullying-abuse-harassment) is satanic, perhaps in more than just one sense. It hugely damages our Church. We need an exorcism of senior leaders who protect villains. Ian Elliott wrote a stunning 4 page early chapter in ‘Letters to a Broken Church’. It celebrates progress made within Irish Catholicism. Alas, much less progress has been made within Anglicanism-as yet!
Ref your mention of Holy Spirit, some self-badged evangelical and / or charismatic establishments (management) became functionally denying of Holy Spirit in ordinary congregation attenders.
This included a detached C of E “place” affiliated with Bethel Redding, Focus, Church Society, YWAM et al, and it was a good bishop that CDM’d the manic vicar (not about money or the young lady lodger), who had never acknowledged his onetime subordinate (and effective predecessor) who earlier did so much to quietly build up the place. The remaining 50 congregation out of the 200, having moved out of their prestige hire and back into their nominal premises, and the new vicar, are very puzzled about what went on (but I’m not, and I left months before the collapse).
I wonder if this is because of mid-century and 1990s triumphalism (after all, oriental tyranny had been eternally defeated) and an absence of the permanent blessing of repentance which the 18 th century Marrowmen were aware of.
Martin: Your resignation is entirely understandable, but very sad. It is the sign that the argument is lost and the harm perpetrated on people by offenders in the Church and the Church itself is intentional.
When we have the clear path laid down by Professor Alexis Jay and Synod chooses to ignore it and think Church House knows best, it is a sign that the argument is lost and the harm is intentional.
When we have Dame Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves MBE articulating so clearly the nature of the problem, but they are sacked not embraced, it is a sign that the argument is lost and the harm is intentional.
“God, grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot change, The courage to change the things I can, And the wisdom to know the difference.”
At some point we all have to embrace the wisdom to know that the entrenched and corrupt figures in the Church will not allow change. The argument is lost, the harm is intentional.
Thank you for everything you have done to help demonstrate that the harm is intentional.
If you are a Bishop, Archbishop, Church House employee, Synod member, or other person with a role in this debacle, you are now on notice. We know the harm is intentional and if you don’t mean it, you need to make that clear and break out of the conflict of loyalty you are in.
Sir Geoffrey Howe resigned, stating: ‘The time has come for others to consider their response to the tragic conflict of loyalty with which I have perhaps wrestled for far too long.’
Perhaps someone else might demonstrate their character and do similar.
Whilst I would agree that the harm could be considered intentional, definitely not that the argument is lost.
This is not an argument, not an academic debate but a struggle for truth and justice for victims, survivors and those falsely accused. They have been severely harmed; Graham said recently it eats away at him every day. These people need healing and peace through justice and it is that which is being refused. This refusal is intentional. The hierarchy of the Church of England know full well what they are doing. Martin has made it quite clear to them both directly in open letters and in Synod. They are afraid of the Truth which is the reason Martin and others trying to speak the Truth in Synod are closed down and there is a move to next business.
This is a fight between good and evil and we have to believe good will triumph in the end; that is what our Christian belief is about. We must support Martin in what he has done so far and also Clive Billiness (RIP) whose work Martin is continuing to address. Their efforts cannot, indeed must not, be lost and we all have a responsibility to make sure this does not happen.
A good starting point, I would suggest, is through prayer. Everything offered to God brings about good; it will be exciting to see what He brings about in this case. Perhaps if we look carefully it has already started to happen………
Thank you very much, Martin, for giving us all such inspiration through your works. I rather think the Church of England, after all this time will soon be running scared.
Thank you.
(Revelations 18:4-5)
‘[4]And I heard another voice from heaven saying, “Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues.
[5]For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.’