In recent days and weeks, those of us who take an interest in safeguarding concerns in the Church of England have noticed a level of confusion and incoherence in this area among the senior levels of church management.  The latest misstep on the part of our church leaders is that surrounding the appointment of David Urquhart, the former Bishop of Birmingham to the role of Bishop to the Archbishops of Canterbury and York (BACY).  This appointment caused a negative reaction among some survivor groups. Bishop Urquhart has been publicly named in at least two cases of serious failure over safeguarding cases.  Here it is not necessary to dwell on these well-rehearsed lapses or failures of judgment on his part.  Rather we question the wisdom of allowing any individual who has so evidently attracted serious criticisms to his name to be, once again, prominent on the stage of national church decision making.

On this occasion Lambeth Palace (LP) has responded to criticisms by announcing that the safeguarding part of the post of BACY is to be handed to Ijeoma Ajibade, Chief of Staff at Lambeth Palace. This does not, in fact, sound like a clarification but more like a panic response or reaction to the criticism.  No one has indicated that this holder of the post of Chief of Staff has any qualifications or experience in the safeguarding field. In fact of the three key people who oversee the CofE’s efforts in this arena, the head of the NST, the Lead Bishop and now the Archbishops’ Chief of Staff, each may have varying degrees of professional experience and backgrounds relevant to their roles. However, the task of applying these to the complex structure of the CofE and the centres of real power in the Church is extremely challenging for newcomers. Whether any of them have the authority to effect necessary change is something that can by no means taken for granted.  Is LP continuing with its delusion that as long as there is someone with the job title of safeguarding, then everything will come out all right?  In view of the countless ways that things can go wrong, that is a short-sighted assumption to make.

 When the auditors of SCIE were writing their report last year, they were clearly assuming that the bishop replacing Emma Ineson (the former BACY) would have her safeguarding brief as part of their job-description.  LP (and its lawyers!) also had access to the report for several months beforehand.  No one at the review stage of the report saw fit to correct this perfectly reasonable assumption on the part of SCIE.  Questions arise about how this apparent panic response and muddle ever arose.  Had senior people at the Palace and Church House simply forgotten about the Urquhart’s safeguarding failures or is this yet another example of senior figures in the CofE failing to grasp the importance of understanding safeguarding from the survivors’ perspective?  The SCIE report, as we saw, drew attention to a serious failure of empathy for survivors at LP.  Perhaps this is just a further example of such insensitivity in operation. The SCIE report also identified bullying and fear among the junior staff and a reticence for taking unwelcome news ‘upstairs’.

Meanwhile further confusion continues at the Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB).  We have to remember that this group received significant blanking from General Synod in February.  The controllers of the agenda at Synod did not allow even the existence of the group to be mentioned in the published agenda.  This blanking does not allow us to know what the ISB thinks it has achieved in the first year of its existence.  The three individuals chosen to make up the ISB all bring significant life-experience to their roles.. But we still do not yet have a sense of what they feel able to do, in supporting and critiquing safeguarding work across the CofE. It is still hard to discern what they expect to achieve and how their work dovetails into all the other safeguarding initiatives being undertaken at present. They also do not seem to know whether the powers that be in the Church will allow them to be effective.  Several major stumbling blocks stand in their way.  One is, as we have already reported, the stepping back of the Chair, Maggie Atkinson. This took place months ago, and we had expected that some kind of resolution to this problem might have been achieved by now.  It is hard to see how the rest of the Board can achieve very much in the light of this major impediment.  It is an absurd situation. A second factor standing in the way of being an effective operation is that the two remaining active members are employed part-time.  Jasvinda Sangera, the survivors’ advocate, is said to be employed by the Archbishops’ Council for one or two days a week.  This may provide sufficient time to write reports, but it will not be sufficient for the task of finding survivors and creating robust lines of communication with them.  Nor will it allow them to undertake major investigations or detailed case work.  There seems to be an acceptance on the part of the remaining ISB members that their capacity to perform the tasks that the Archbishops’ Council might hand to them is beyond their resources, manpower and financial. Such candour on their part is important and welcome.

The recent SCIE report about LP provoked a vigorous response from Ms Sangera of the ISB and this was published on their website.  In it she first calls for ‘a less complicated system so that survivors have clear referral pathways supported by a team.’  Clearly, she has met a number of survivors and this is also reflected in her second demand.  She knows all about delay and ignored pleas for this group, since these are constantly encountered.  She asks those who receive such pleas for help to provide ‘actions in good time that provide updates and assurances to those they serve in safeguarding’.   All this is summed up by a plea from Ms Sangera that the church authorities ‘should prioritise arrangements for identifying and responding to complaints about safeguarding received by the Palace, which this report states is hampered by the lack of a comprehensive complaints system’.

Clearly Ms Sangera has some good ideas for safeguarding and many survivors might feel heartened by the thought that there is an apparently independent voice articulating some of their needs.  She also appears to have a good grasp of the way that church structures are frequently ineffective in meeting the real needs of survivors.  But the serious problems of delivery remain.  One we have already mentioned, the part-time commitment of the ISB members and its depleted strength.  The other complaint that I have heard is that, even after a year of operation, the ISB has failed to become widely known.  Much communication these days takes place on Twitter and Facebook.  The ISB profile on Twitter is virtually non-existent.  Any campaigning organisation in 2023 should be working hard to identify followers and activists in the field.  Even though the ISB has professional and paid PR support, there seems to be minimal online activity and the website is not easy to find. The website, when you find it, contains very little information of help to survivors.   Surely a well-funded organisation like the ISB can devise ways of creating interest in its work and having a strong online presence?

The safeguarding world of the CofE is not, as far as one can see, in good health at present.  The bureaucracy at the centre, whether in Church House or LP does not communicate a loving or empathetic face to survivors.  The difficulty that these official structures have in showing compassion and care, has an unfortunate result.  When individuals, who actually do possess human compassion, work within these structures, they can quickly become disillusioned.  These unresponsive structures evidently sap the morale of staff every bit as much as through their dealing with angry and frustrated survivors.

One by one people of empathy seem to be squeezed out of these bureaucratic systems because they are often, quite simply, fairly toxic environments to work in.  We have seen the high turnover of staff at the NST, and it is clear from the published material from the ISB, that its individual members have not found it easy to find their way within the total system.  The CofE is, like most other organisations, instinctively programmed to put its own its own survival and existence as the highest value.  The demands of safeguarding are seen by many to attack the two things that are held to be vital to the CofE’s survival – its assets and reputation.  The task of dealing justly and honourably with survivors may assist with the integrity of the Church, but any substantial alignment with honesty and just dealing is seen by some to undermine the wider institution in terms of its material well-being and institutional power.

We have begun to see how some of the serious reputational issues that the Church is currently facing may be a direct consequence of failings in the safeguarding sphere.  Getting things right in this area is thoroughly hard work and there are signs of weariness and loss of stamina among many involved clergy and lay-people.  They dread hearing the word safeguarding in any church context.  Even though many people inside the CofE do not want to hear anything further about protecting the vulnerable, any further failings in this area will weaken and undermine the structure of the whole Church.  We need to hear the survivors; we need the reconcilers and healers. In short we need to find again the values of integrity, honesty and justice in our Church.  Whenever we lose sight of these things, we are in danger of seeing the Church itself disappear in the course of one or two generations.  The writing is on the wall when we suddenly discover that men and women of competence and integrity no longer want to seek leadership roles in what has started to become a discredited institution.  It is alarming that none of the Diocesan bishops is prepared to step forward and shoulder the responsibility of Lead Bishop for Safeguarding. They fear, as I tried to explain in the last blog post, being swallowed up by dishonesty and even corruption because they detect that integrity, honesty and justice no longer really matter in the Church of England.

One of the words that is at the forefront of Christian observance during Lent is self-examination.  This implies that a good Christian should give time to trawl through memory and awareness to discover whether his/her behaviour has worsened or improved over the previous weeks and months.  There is a strong emphasis in much Christian writing on personal responsibility for one’s sin and the need to seek forgiveness.  Some do this kind of self-examination alone, while others seek out another Christian to act as a mentor/confessor.  Whichever method of self-scrutiny is adopted, there is the hope that we are somehow moving towards a goal of knowing ourselves better under God, and becoming more righteous people.  The Christian pilgrimage should always involve this kind of effort to penetrate through the fog of self-deceit and self-delusion of which we are all guilty.

As a child I was required to learn by heart a large section of the Prayer Book Catechism, especially the section on the duty towards God and neighbour.   The words about keeping our hands ‘from picking and stealing’ and keeping ‘my body in temperance, soberness and chastity’ made quite an impression.  What remains in me of this style of instruction is a memory that the Christian journey seemed rather bleak and lonely. One thing that was never emphasised was that the life of discipleship involved other people.  The Catechism seemed to be encouraging us to think of Christian life as a lonely individual trek, avoiding sin as best we could.  The way of life was very much one between the individual and God.  Self-examination was one way that we kept, or tried to keep, these lines of communication open.  At the risk of caricature, one could describe this path to self-examination as being of the ‘8am said communion’ variety of Christian observance.

Two things have become increasingly apparent to me since those long-ago days of the 1950s.  In the first place it has become clear to me that sin is not, and never has been, only a matter of individuals surrendering to temptation. We have become dramatically aware of the corporate dimension to sin.  At one level this corporate sin is not something we can do much about. Human responsibility for war, climate change and poverty go far beyond the capabilities of individuals to resolve, even those who run whole countries.  There is, however, a responsibility to make ourselves prayerfully informed of these big issues like racism and the various forms of phobia directed at minorities the world over.  Just because we cannot sort out a problem does not release us from all responsibility for concerning ourselves with it.  Corporate sins continue to exist as social and political realities, and we live in that world. None of us, anyway, can claim total innocence in our personal relationships to them.   Each of us may be guilty of harbouring some secret sympathy for one or other of these social evils, even when such collusion may be totally hidden. A temptation to sympathise with, say, misogyny or homophobia may be something we never admit to, but it is perhaps still to be found deep within our psyches.  Such attachments to corporate sin need to be owned up to in our hearts, even if we never act on them or express out loud any attraction to them.  We may be ‘guilty’ in some sense for this failure to root out such attitudes in ourselves. 

The second thing that has changed for me is a new awareness of the ways in which sin has a habit of attaching itself to groups of people, and then progressively corrupting everyone in that network.  We are not talking about the big issues like racism, world poverty or climate change.  As Jesus said ‘the poor you have with you always’.  There is an indication here that he recognised that, while our actions will help that situation, it will not make it disappear.  The corporate evil for which we do have considerable responsibility is of a different order.  It is found, for example, in the act of a passive colluding in a committee decision which is obviously wrong.  A readiness to go along with a group decision for the sake of a quiet life is a common manifestation of this kind of sin today.  Allowing an evil to take place because we are intimidated by a powerful chairman or misplaced loyalties is a manifestation of personal failing, even if we have not, individually, done or said anything.  We still carry guilt from our refusal to confront what may be a clear evil in front of us.

One of the things I have learnt In my role as an advocate for survivors, is to see clearly the corporate miasma of evil which can spread from the malevolence of a few to envelop groups and even large institutions.  When a group within an institution decides to turn on an individual for reasons of their own, they seem to find ways of pressuring the bystander to join in this campaign of persecution.  Such bullying behaviour is not in any way condoned by the bystander, but a failure to speak up makes them a collaborator and an enabler of injustice.  Again and again, even at the highest levels of authority in the Church, I have become aware of dynamics within committees that fail to challenge malevolence, and thus allow acts of evil to take place.  The guilt that is spread across a colluding group is not the same as a deliberate act of choosing wrongdoing.  We find here a different sort of evil, the evil of passive collusion.  It appeals to a desire for a quiet life but also feeds on a weakened sense of justice and truth in those present.  This tolerance of evil may be an act of cowardice, but the consequences are still serious.  Evil is permitted to slip through the net; the consciences of those involved are not operating effectively. 

In this blog piece I have identified three areas of failure which should lead us to confession and a request for forgiveness from God.  Two of these areas of evil are arenas where it is possible to see our measure of responsibility.   The third is, we have indicated, outside our control, but we are still required to attend to it, pray about it and do what we can to alleviate the pain caused by it.  I am, of course, talking about the evils of war, famine, poverty and natural disasters.  Leaving these to one side for a moment, I want to reiterate my focus on the area of life where we collude with evil without perhaps realising that we are doing it.  Although we have done nothing wrong ourselves, we find ourselves sucked into supporting, or at least not challenging, the evil designs of others.   They need us to agree with them and passively support their nefarious purposes.   They need us, as passive bystanders, to add weight of some kind to whatever evil design they are planning against other individuals.  The fact that it is not us planning or thinking evil about another does not let us off the hook.  If we do not stand up to evil when we see it, we are allowing that evil to flourish and so we  must share the guilt.

I am sure most of my readers who have been following this blog can think of examples of occasions in the Church where real evil is attempted in a group by two or three individuals, aided and abetted by others who do not stand up to the perpetrators and challenge what is going on.  There are many stories I hear about, not recorded in the public domain, where such colluding with evil is being practised.  In a committee of eight people, what do we say about the five who say nothing in order not to rock the boat and upset those with a hidden, or not so hidden, agenda?  Colluding with evil, as I describe it, is infecting and corrupting even church members and their leaders.  The ones who collude are possibly unaware of the evil that they are enabling.  Because they are part of a group, their individual conscience is in some way disconnected.  It is only personal evil for which they ever feel responsible.  The need for each person to accept individual responsibility for the actions of the whole, is sadly not well understood in church settings.  ‘Evil flourishes when good people do nothing’.

There is a story in the gospels about a widow who makes demands of a judge to hear her case.  Time after time she is rebuffed.  Eventually, her sheer persistence and a readiness to make herself a thorough nuisance, persuades the judge to accede to her request to be heard.  The implication is that without having made herself a cause of serious irritation for the judge, the widow would not have received any hearing of her case.

The complaining widow finds a possible echo in the many people who cry out for justice by taking their complaints of church abuse and bullying to those in authority – the CofE bishops/leaders.  Then, having failed to find there what they believe to be a just solution to their complaints, some try taking their case to what they believe to be the highest legal and moral authority in the Church of England – Lambeth Palace (LP) and the Archbishop of Canterbury who lives there.  Out of sheer desperation and losing hope of finding anyone else to listen to their story and their appeals for justice, many individuals in the Church end up trying to communicate with the Palace.   The recent Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) report on LP casts an unflattering view of the way that these appeals for help from survivors and victims have been processed and responded to.  Even though LP employs a number of full-time staff to answer letters and receive phone calls from the public, there has been little sign that safeguarding cases have been reacted to with an adequate degree of skill, compassion or expertise.  The overall message, that is shared by those who spoke to the auditors who wrote the 80-page SCIE report, suggests that few seem to be heard effectively.  What might an abused person expect from a phone conversation with an employee at LP?  They might expect that the call would, at the very least, be logged in some way.  They would expect some kind of response if individuals or churches were mentioned as being dangerous to church members.  If they made follow-up phone calls, they might reasonably hope to speak to the same person that they had poured out their story to earlier.  Instead of these things, survivors have been fed with formal stereotyped responses which do not appear to want to understand the detailed content of what is being shared.  Another way of putting it is to say that there seems to be no indication that those who work in the section of the Palace that deals with safeguarding correspondence and emails, possess the required degree of compassionate and intelligent understanding of the needs of survivors.

The SCIE report sets out a scenario at LP where ordinary common-sense responsiveness was not being applied.  Many survivors who spoke to the auditors of SCIE, felt let down, marginalised and thus re-abused by the protocols in operation at LP.  While they were hearing public pronouncements from the Archbishop, that survivors’ concerns were at the heart of the Church’s safeguarding work, the reality seemed very different.  The reality was countless examples of institutional betrayal.  It came over as an organisation that did not know how to care, having neither the resources of expertise or manpower to tackle this enormous task.  That such extra resources were needed, in terms of training, focus and money, should have been obvious to anyone who had the measure of the abuse crisis.  That things were allowed to stagger on, under resourced and without any sense of urgency, for such a long time, speaks of weak management and lack of vision at the top.

Although I am, like everyone else, reading of the institutional failures of the leadership and direction of LP from a distance, there is a sense that I feel quite close to what is being described.  My reason for saying this is that like others, I am regularly approached by some of the same army of abused individuals who seek help.  Having written on this blog about the broad topic of power and its abuse in the church for almost ten years, I ‘meet’ online dozens of individuals who want to tell me their story.  Some of these stories become a blog contribution in their own right.  The abuse survivor who is able to write up their story seems to find some comfort in seeing his/her experiences published on the blog.  It is in this way that I have been cast into the role of an unseen confessor to a variety of men and women with a safeguarding story to tell.

Having accidentally become a listener to the painful experiences of others in this safeguarding arena, I have allowed myself to have some opinions on the topic of survivors’ needs.  When a survivor with a level of distress contacts a total stranger like me or one of the enquiry staff at LP, there are some common factors.  Those who email me out of the blue probably do not think of me as a stranger, as I have, over the years, revealed a considerable amount of personal information about myself.  I do express opinions as well, which may not be to the taste of all my readers.  Opinions and information about my theological perspective at least give my readers enough information to know whether they feel they can trust me with sensitive information of their own. 

Those who have suffered an abusive episode in the church want to tell someone about it.  Telling the story to someone without any role in the church is perhaps far easier than negotiating a complicated complaints process.  My role and the role of the blog as a whole is to provide a listening post.  Nobody who writes on the blog expects (thank goodness!) anyone to wave a magic wand and bring perpetrators to account and produce thousands of pounds of restitution money.  They expect to be listened to with respect and patience.  I want to go on to suggest what I consider to be the minimum requirements of a listening ministry from my perspective.   This is normally all I can offer to those who ring, and it may be all that can realistically be offered to the majority of those who contact LP.  We might hope that the Palace would be offering continuous training for such a ministry.

Requirements for a listening ministry.

Confidentiality

The sharing of deeply personal information is an act of trust.  I need hardly say that such information, though shared, still belongs to the sharer.  As such it cannot be divulged without the permission of the one revealing it.  There are obviously some exceptions but, in practice, the disclosure of actual criminality is not an everyday occurrence. Far more typical is the disclosure of cruel and incompetent care by so-called professionals in the aftermath of an abusive event.

Background knowledge

One particular strength among the small band of advocates for and members of the survivor community is that they understand well the setting and background of what has been going on.  They have read and studied the reports and enquiries and will know other people active in the field of survivor advocacy.  The expertise and background knowledge of survivors and their advocates is far greater than the majority of the professionals employed by the National Church Institutions (NCI).  It is a constant source of frustration that events that took place more than a year or two before are not known about among many professionals.  The really vital task of remembering and providing ‘narrative wisdom’ has been easier since the launch of the website ‘House of Survivors’. I strongly commend it.

 Humanity and trauma informed experience

Some understanding of the psychological pain of survivors is important.  Dealing with trauma in another person is never easy but the listener can at least learn not to be surprised at sudden outbursts of anger or emotion that can appear within the listening process.  Listening will be articulating our desire to understand even when it may be difficult both for the one who is entrusted with such information and the one who is sharing it.

Continuity so that story is only told once.

One of the constant irritants for the one who is raising a complaint against an individual or an institution is the need to tell the story repeatedly to different bodies.  Also, the last thing a survivor wants to hear is that, having painfully told their personal story, he/she then finds it has not been properly recorded or that it has disappeared into the system. The survivor is desperate to be heard and, if the story is not thought important enough to be listened to with real attention, it is experienced as a profound betrayal.  This was evidently a frequent event at LP in their interactions with the survivor community.  

Practical support where possible.  Contacts, resources and practical help.   

A large institution like the CofE should want to be seen to support survivors in every possible way.  Placing resources into the effort to help those whom we now know to form a considerable cohort of abused individuals, is a sign of compassion but also of seriousness.  LP has access not only to funds but also to people with considerable experience of legal and therapeutic matters who are needed to help the wounded back to a path of wholeness.  A lot can be done to help and rebuild the CofE’s safeguarding reputation if imagination and energy are put into the task.

The Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) has spoken.  The Council members have called on every evangelical church, member or leader, to action in response to General Synod’s decisions on marriage in London in early February.  If every individual who self-describes as an evangelical were to follow the CEEC’s call, it could possibly mark the end of the Church of England as a body which celebrates diversity and inclusivity.  In summary, the CEEC seems to be trying to transform the CofE to become more like an evangelical sect.  This new body would have a very selective and tenuous link with its past Anglican traditions.  Its roots and nourishment from its catholic past would be erased from memory.  In its place there would be highly selective reading of Anglican history. This would privilege a group of 16^th century Protestant Divines over most other periods of the rich Anglican experience.  Simultaneously there would be no interest in maintaining the goodwill of the vast mass of the people of England.  Another way of putting this would be to say that the CEEC is actively seeking to create a new Church of England quite different from its traditional and current manifestations.  It would then be hard, in any sense, to refer to it as our national Church.

These are strong words, but I have identified in my mind three ways that the two recent documents issued by the CEEC can be read as a direct or indirect attack on the identity of the CofE as we know it. One is a six-page document to ‘evangelicals’ to take ‘appropriate actions’ following the Synod vote. The other is a call to the same group to write letters of protest to the various non-CEEC bishops that oversee their parishes and networks.  Were every ‘evangelical’ to follow these instructions, I can see a blizzard of pressure on the institution that would become intolerable for existing church structures and the leadership which has to deal with it. 

The first way in which the CofE is already facing threats to its existence and integrity, is that it contains within it groups and factions predisposed to show intolerance to others.  The ultra-conservative wing, represented by the CEEC, implicitly questions the right of those with moderate or liberal opinions to have a place within the fold.  There is the assumption that the CEEC and its linked organisations alone have a claim on biblical truth and thus the true Anglican tradition.  This is based on a ‘correct’ interpretation of the Bible and knowing how it is to be understood.  Those of us who have spent substantial amounts of time reading and studying Scripture over the years know that any claims of certainty when interpreting Scripture are likely to be questionable. There is hardly ever such a thing as a universally agreed understanding of a single passage of Scripture.  Many disputes from the past, like the authorship of the book of Isaiah, are answered with ‘political’ rather than scholarly tools.  The belief in an ability to arrive at certainty in many areas of biblical interpretation remains a chimera. Even the smallest amount of exposure to so-called ‘higher criticism’, which includes some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, reveals how difficult it is to reach universally agreed interpretations.  There also has to be room for our understandings to evolve and change.  The assumption that Calvinist (or Catholic) biblical interpretations are somehow always correct is thus highly questionable.  This is particularly true for those of us who have studied theology in a non-sectarian setting.  The CEEC may represent a phalanx of Christian opinion that believes it possible to settle on fixed or final opinions about scriptural truth, but this position in no way represents the wider Anglican tradition.  The ‘liberal’ opposing point of view to the CEEC comes from those who simply do not believe in settled opinions or unchallengeable answers in theology.  For us, whether professionally educated or open to new insights at every point in our Christian pilgrimage, there is a simple demand for our right to hold on to our evolving understandings of scripture.  No one I know wants to deny that right to the conservative interpreters; they do however object when the fundamentalist wing represented by CEEC seems to suggest that all ‘liberal’, questioning thinking should be declared heretical and outlawed in the CofE.  Would the CEEC want to destroy the places of learning, – places where discussion, debate and differences of opinion coexist – to be destroyed in favour of a monochrome conservative Anglicanism?  The claim to possess the ‘truth’ in Christian teaching carries with it this implied threat.  Unless you agree with us and follow our implied assumptions about truth, we believe that you have to disappear in the interests of having a Bible-based, orthodox pure body.  To put things at its simplest, the CEEC would like all who do not agree with its teaching to go away, allowing approved evangelicals alone to ‘preach the Gospel’ as the Council understands it.

The second way that the CEEC is creating serious stress for the CofE is in the document that calls for a blizzard of letter writing to bishops.  The letter is to contain the points that are provided in a document helpfully provided by the CEEC.  All the letters which may come from individuals or parishes will say the same thing.  In CEEC’s words the letter ‘will call on our bishops to joyfully reaffirm the Bible’s teaching on marriage and sex as good news for individuals and for society as a whole.’  The comment I make to this call for letters to be written, is to contemplate the effect on those who receive such missives.  If I received 5000 such letters from a group of unknown people, I would feel very pressured and not know how to react.  What is the CEEC really trying to achieve with this document?  I could make various guesses but one thing I know that will happen, is that this action will result in stress and a sense of demoralisation among these senior Anglican leaders.

Through my blogging activities I can recall times when I have been made aware of failures among the episcopate in the safeguarding arena.  Such failures are patently visible in today’s SCIE report on Lambeth Palace. Whatever else is true, bishops and archbishops have to endure, whether or not deserved, a great deal of stress as part of their job. Whether CEEC means to increase their stress or not, it is obvious that the emails and letters that all the bishops can expect will clog up their letter boxes and in-trays for weeks to come.  Ignoring all these missives may be one way of dealing with the flood, but others may feel obliged to answer each one.  Putting extra stress on bishops is one way of making their role seem decidedly unattractive.  Is the plan of the CEEC to wear down this body of CofE leaders so that they buckle under the stress?  Will the office of CofE bishop now be seen, more clearly than ever, to be a poisoned chalice so that no one of ability would want the role?  Are there still enough able men and women in the system willing to risk their happiness and stability to take on such a task?  If the office and role of bishop ever became so toxic that suitable potential candidates refused to take it on, that would create a crisis for the Church.  Very quickly that would become destructive to the well-being of the whole body.  Perhaps the  CEEC is plotting to have its own cohort of nominees to step in, if the traditional pool of likely candidates dries up.

The third way that the activities of the CEEC are a threat to the whole CofE is through the way the current tensions over same sex marriage are being viewed by the public.  Most fair-minded non church people accept that there is a debate to be had over the nature of marriage and the issue of same-sex relationships.  Only a few will take the view that there is nothing to be discussed because some authority, whether the Bible or some religious expert, has decreed a final answer to the problem.  I cannot imagine that the wider public will ever, in Britain, favour the right-wing or authoritarian approach to the issue.  In short, any ‘victory’ by the CEEC in the current debates would in no way make the ‘gospel’ attractive to the bulk of the population.  If anything, we might see a deeper estrangement between British society and what remains of the Church.  Society has shifted irrevocably.  Short of something like a Trumpian revolution in Britain, it is impossible to imagine that opinions about private sexual morality will substantially change in the next fifty years.  To summarise, any further insistence on equating the Christian faith with reactionary attitudes on sexual morality will severely compromise the already weakened contract between the CofE and society.  The genius of Anglicanism to be a broad church, tolerating a wide variety of opinions and attitudes, will be gone for ever.

The provocative question in the title of this piece can now receive an attempted answer.  There is, no doubt, no deliberate intention to undermine the CofE on the part of the CEEC.  Nevertheless, their actions, which have been taken in the light of the recent Synod debate, have damaging institutional consequences.  Putting pressure on all the bishops is fairly harmful to their morale and thus to the wider organisation.  Thrusting all our bishops into an unwanted political maelstrom also creates a situation profoundly unhelpful to their wellbeing.   No one desires that anyone should suffer in this way, but the suffering and consequent stress to the whole institution is real.  Challenging the large section of the church we call liberals, by questioning their honesty and even their right to exist as bone-fide Christians, is a serious form of bullying.  Such bullying is debilitating and may contribute further to a weakening of the Church.  Our attempt to remain loyal members of an institution which such behaviour is found is hard to sustain.

Many readers of this blog will be observers of an episode in Kentucky which has been dubbed the Asbury Revival.  Asbury is the home of a small Christian university, and its chapel is the site of a continuous act of worship which has been going on for a fortnight.  People have been travelling from all over the States, and beyond, to attend this service where the claim is that God is working a revival which will spread soon to other places all over the world.  In some ways it resembles the Toronto Blessing.  There are significant differences, the main one being that Asbury has not thrown up yet any named leaders.  Toronto Airport Chapel where the earlier ‘revival’ took place in 1994, was ably led by professional clergy who coordinated the events for several months.

Revivals are complicated things to assess, and part of me was hoping that this Asbury event would quickly fizzle into obscurity before I had to say anything or even think about it.  Then one of the Surviving Church readers sent me an email asking me directly what I thought might be going on.  I answered him fairly quickly but, in the process of doing so, I found my mind generating ideas and thoughts which I find worth sharing with my wider readership.

As long-term readers of this blog will know, I have some personal history of exposure to charismatic events and teaching.  Back in the early 1980s I would say that I identified with aspects of charismatic spirituality.  This fed into several years of an active healing ministry with my wife.  Over a period, I was led to write two books on the topic of healing and address meetings around the country.  Something changed for me in the 1990s when many Christians who openly identified with charismatic styles of theology seemed to insist, increasingly, on a hard-edged style of theology.  I could not follow or identify with this.  I have, from my undergraduate days, found what I describe as the Bible proof text method of doing theology a dishonest and frankly incomprehensible way of discovering the mystery of God.  The opening up that the charismatic styles of prayer had taught me, and which allowed me to share deeper insights, could not be sustained in the presence of Christians whose main concern was to establish whether I was ‘sound’.  By the standards of a card-carrying conservative Christian, I did not pass this test of soundness.

Returning to the phenomenon of Ashbury and the revival that is believed to be taking place, I begin with a number of observations.  The first thing to note is that, in the chapel where the revival is supposed to be happening, there is a dominating preponderance of young people. Of course we would expect this in a university chapel but the bulk of the visitors, of which there are many, are also young. In common with the flag-ship revival churches up and down Britain, we find an apparent resonance between such churches and the emotional and spiritual needs of the young.  The second factual observation I make is the style of music.   I am not sure how to describe the dominating style of music that inevitably appears at a revival event.   Much of what I have listened to on YouTube seems to belong to a slow repetitive style, where there is a strong preference for a minor key.  The distinct reflective mode of this music style helps to further a distinctive mood which seems to enthral the audience.  The appeal does not seem to wane, even over long periods of time.  In my continuing attempt to be as objective as possible, I note that this style of music, culturally speaking, does not fit in with the taste of many older people – the over 35 cohort.  Whatever the spiritual significance of Asbury may prove to be, there is clearly also a strong cultural dimension at work.  If this is a real revival, the cynic might suggest that the Holy Spirit is only interested in working among middle-class Americans of student age.

I have on this blog, in the past, offered my observations on the way that conservative/revivalist Christianity seems normally to be far more accessible to the student-age population than to older Christians.  No doubt someone has done some research on why this should be from the cultural/psychological perspective.  I do not know where such research may be written up, so my remarks here have to be rooted in what I have observed over a lifetime of what goes on in churches of all kinds.  My summary claim, based on my observations of Christian life, is that there is something spiritually genuine at the heart of some so-called revivals, including this one.  Nevertheless, it is not the universal panacea for a declining Church in our culture.  It is unrealistic, indeed impertinent, to expect all Christians across the world to recognise in events like Asbury a full embrace of Christian truth as they have known it. The Christian phenomenon, as it manifests itself across the world, is too varied and too diverse to be wrapped up in one single cultural manifestation.  We would be guilty of cultural and spiritual imperialism to claim such a thing.

I have used the word ‘genuine’ to describe what is going on at Asbury University.  I want to explain how, from my point of view, it contains something to teach all of us.  I have expressed a certain number of qualifying caveats to my welcome of the idea of an Asbury revival, but I want now to consider the potential positives.  I begin with some words of Jesus when he said something to the effect of ‘unless you become as little children, you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven’.  I have, with countless other preachers, struggled with the meaning of these words.  There is probably no single meaning, but Jesus may be recognising something about the way children apprehend reality much more directly than those of mature age.  Christians of student age, the ones now experiencing revival in Kentucky, seem closer to this capacity to experience a primal spiritual awareness than the older among us. To use the analogy of the onion, older people have far more layers to strip away than the young.  I am wondering whether the ability of ‘gospel music’ to promote stillness and spiritual awareness among some of the young is something we need to understand far better.  Might it not be that this style of music is allowing many young people to regress to the ‘childlike’, even naïve, awareness of God by children that Jesus commended?   This is something that the older among us find increasingly difficult to do.

In my days of studying the phenomenon of Christian healing in the 80s and 90s, I was puzzled by the way that, while ‘miracles’ happened from time to time, there was no way that, from the outside, one could predict who was going to receive healing and who not.  What I observed was that prayer for healing was a worthwhile activity which was sometimes answered by transforming events.  Without going into detail, there was one ingredient that could always be found in every healing episode.  Christians call this ingredient faith.  I use this word rather tentatively as it has gathered to itself a number of connotations which I believe are unhelpful.  I, for one, want to link it back to the childlike primal reaching out to the other, in an attitude of hope and expectation.  This is what Jesus seems to have commended.  It is the sentiment that one hopes to be at the heart of the Asbury revival.  Those who experience this link, this momentary reconnection with God, will find something that lasts, maybe even for a lifetime. 

Will the revival last?  My answer is affected by what I see of the history of revivals.  The power of revival events seems to be hard to maintain.   The energy in them seems to dissipate.  Worse still, the spontaneity of revival is so often destroyed because the unholy juggernauts of institutions appear.  These are the ones that try to attach every new spiritual movement to a money-making machine.  Also, the new experience of ‘faith’ discovered by many individuals, is forcibly diverted into another sort of faith.  This is the one that requires those affected to assent to doctrinal formulae which may have little connection to what they have experienced. This unholy process is vividly described in the book by Reuben Alves, Protestantism and Repression. Asbury may well leave something behind, even if not what Christian leaders want to see – full churches and financial strength for the church institutions.  There may be clusters of new spiritual power inside the hearts of men and women around the world.  This comes as the result of having been for a short time in a new active communication with the transcendent power we call God.

  My hopes for Asbury are tempered with a realistic understanding of the human capacity to destroy spiritual energy because of power games, control and money.  Many of my readers will have shared my dismay at the way institutions so often corrupt those who are part of them.  If there is something alive and spiritually genuine about what is being experienced at this small Christian university in Kentucky, we pray that it may survive these dangers of being controlled by people who are concerned only for their own purposes.  We will see over a period of time whether the parts of it that seem to be genuine, are indeed of God.  If they are, we trust that they will be allowed to remain of God.

I think it was Aristotle, the ancient Greek philosopher, who spoke about the mean between extremes.  What he was talking about was the fact that there are many experiences or descriptions which attach to people or things where one of two extremes can dominate. The place somewhere in the middle is probably the best place to be. A sherry can be a very sweet variety or one that that is very dry.  Most people would opt for something in between. Gardeners know that growing vegetables to the largest size possible does not necessarily produce a crop which is particularly palatable.  There is an optimum medium size where flavour is at its best.  The same principle applies when we want to help people be at the most effective when seeking to influence others.  Loud aggressive shouting at one end and passive feeble whining at the other do not deliver the required results.  Most people would opt for a degree of firmness which is neither abject surrender nor overwhelming coercion and aggression.  Somehow, we attempt to arrive at a middle point that allows us to resolve differences in a drama-free way.   As a further example of this moderation principle, we can imagine the reasoning of those who drink alcohol.  Most of them would probably agree that, just because they enjoy drinking, this is not a reason for becoming drunk every time alcohol is freely available. Moderating our behaviour and our beliefs from potentially extreme positions is an expedient path to take in a world where people try to live together amicably.  The ‘mean’, the moderate position, is likely to be a dominant one in most walks of life.  Nevertheless, we still sometimes meet up with the individual who takes a very hard line in a belief system or a behaviour preference.  Most of the time, in practice, we try to avoid anything that others might describe as an extreme.  The middle way is what is acceptable in the majority of situations.

Being a parent has taught many of us the importance of teaching what moderate behaviour looks like.  For example, we try to teach children the values of sharing, waiting for their turn and generally being considerate to others.  We are also aware of the importance of learning to stick up for oneself in a situation where there is bullying behaviour.   We do not want our children to be manipulated or taken advantage of.  One word that is banded about in this connection is the word self-esteem.  It is a word that implies that the child (or adult) has found the middle way between being crushed by the control of others and the use of excessive verbal or physical force to get one’s own way.  The cultivation of self-esteem is something that continues right the way through life.  What is it exactly?  Most people would agree that to have self-esteem is to be able to apply one’s abilities and gifts in the task of living without crushing others or being dominated by them.  We neither want to be the person who gives way excessively or be seen as the bully who insists that everyone sees the world in one particular way and uses power to achieve this end.

Esteem is one of those somewhat slippery words that is quite hard to define.  It often refers to the respect we feel for a person of integrity and giftedness.  Esteem is something that people give to one another right across the gamut of human relationships.  To have self-esteem is generally a way of describing our internal sense of finding our place within a community and enjoying a realistic sense of belonging.  The one without any self-esteem is the isolated individual, or the pariah who feels adrift within a community.  He/she has no networks of support to help him/her hold on to a secure sense of identity.  

If self-esteem belongs to the one occupying a realistic place on the spectrum of having a balanced place of affirmation within a community, we can sketch out what happens when someone privileged demands that others honour them at every opportunity.  This may be the way that someone who is rich, powerful or entitled believes others should treat them.  They may introduce their approach to others with the words ‘don’t you know who I am?’ In some cases, we are describing someone with strong narcissistic tendencies.  If the individual concerned is the kind that also always insists on the use of titles or some other method of signifying superior status, we may suspect that there may be a problem of esteem deprivation from the past, particularly in childhood.  In short, the adult who lacks self-esteem may be very similar to someone who is seeking to be affirmed and their status acknowledged at every opportunity.  Both are reaching out for something that may not have been provided when they were growing up.

When we enter the world of suspected narcissistic pathology, we find that it is accompanied by what can only be described as addictive elements.  The bullying boss or the controlling fellow worker not only behaves badly towards others in the firm, but we also sense a desperate need in him/her to behave like this.  The ability to make people frightened of you or walk on eggshells around you, seems to be satisfying some pathological need.  Coercion and control are often ways that people operate almost by habit.  This may be a way of self-medicating for a lack of adequate self-esteem which was denied to them in their early years.  Many bullies are unhappy because they never had a place in their neighbourhood or family where they were valued just for being what they are.  Esteem, real esteem, had perhaps been denied them when young, so that they have had to develop new ways of compelling, through acts of aggression, some faux esteem from others.  If they have access to any institutional power, they may use this as a way to keep themselves feeling important.  Because of this, those who are below them in the hierarchy may have to suffer from this bullying/narcissistic behaviour.

It goes without saying that this kind of bullying coercion is not infrequently found in the church.  One might say that because the church operates on a strict hierarchical basis, it will attract candidates for office precisely because self-esteem needs can easily be met by those who become part of this hierarchy.  One of the things that I have found difficult to deal with in my time as a clergyman is the way that the profession of the clergy seems to create, for a significant minority, a mindset that offers its members the same ‘rewards’ as those sought by narcissists.  Among them are status, messianism and grandiosity.  We have all met clergy who seem to bathe in the esteem that comes from having a deferential group around them. This constant need for gratification through their status and importance is also sustained by an unhealthy enjoyment of titles and special clothes.  I have written in the past about this narcissism that is indulged in by some clergy.  Regardless of exactly how the position is used for this kind of gratification, the esteem that clergy enjoy through their status has seldom been a healthy impulse in creating a community that follows the example of Jesus.

The possession of adequate levels of self-esteem is far from being an unworthy aspiration.  We want every human being to know the security that comes from having a realistic knowledge of themselves and a place within a secure community or family.  When individuals stray away from this place of equilibrium in their self-esteem, we find that they may encounter desperation and unhappiness.  Those individuals who are ambitious, wanting to ‘get ahead’ in the levels of esteem they believe they are entitled to, may be working through an esteem deficit and childhood memories of humiliation and shame.  The miasma of power games and competition which we find, even in the church, can sometimes be interpreted as the antics of those who are using church structures in their needy, even addictive, attempt to rise above their own personal past traumas. 

In summary, we find that there are three sources for creating a true lasting self-esteem which we all need for contented living.  We need our own self-esteem to be backed up by our self-knowledge as we described in the previous paragraph.   This is supplemented and affirmed by the acceptance that we receive from others.  They give us esteem insofar as they recognise the true value of what we are now and have been.   Most people are not impressed by anything less than true character showing integrity and truth.   Success in worldly terms is not necessarily a sign that we deserve esteem from our fellows. We have witnessed over the last week a great deal of behaviour which lacks this honesty and integrity.  Senior members of the Church speak in a way that shows that loyalties belong more to a Christian institution than to God in whose name it exists. When this happens, the individual concerned deserves to lose our respect and our esteem.   The final source of our self-esteem is from God himself.  I have not the time here to describe the ways that Christian teaching is sometimes distorted to imply that God does not accept us unconditionally.  If a teaching of human depravity is internalised too far, it can itself cause profound damage to our legitimate attempts to find Christian self-esteem.  That discussion is for another time.  It is sufficient to say that I do not believe that we are required to engage with self-loathing as implied by some classic preaching techniques. The command to love God is balanced by the realisation and recognition that he loves us.  Being loved as we are is a key part of Christian teaching.  It is the foundation of genuine, lasting and true self-esteem.  The power games that we see played out in church and elsewhere by individuals who are addicted to forms of shallow glory and esteem, come to be seen as empty and vain.  When Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in their glory, Jesus was not impressed.  One is tempted to wonder whether our Church, by offering to those in influence superficial esteem alongside power and glory, has led these leaders along a path quite different from the one of humility that Jesus followed.

by K-Anonymous

Editor’s Comment.  On one level this blog contribution is a summary of the Kenneth story to date, but on another level it is asking questions about the slip-shod way that justice in the CofE is administered.  There are three principles of natural justice that are being manifestly denied in this case.   The first is indicated in the title.  There is an assumption of guilt because an accusation has been made.  The second principle of common justice that does not seem to occur to the members of the core group entrusted with this case, is the complete lack of interest in gathering all the factual evidence available.  According to K-Anonymous, the author of the blog, there is vital evidence contained in the choir registers that would indicate when the offences could have taken place.  The third principle that is being denied Kenneth is any possible appeal against the assumptions of the core group.  No appeal system seems to exist against allegations of this kind.  The Kenneth story is important in its own right but it is of wider interest because it reveals a justice system that seems not fit for purpose.  We have currently the ongoing crisis with the Independent Safeguarding Board. This body is unable to function because unseen forces in the Church simply try to airbrush out its very existence as it seeks to exercise its independence.  These matters are serious and undermine the integrity of the justice system within the Church of England at the highest level.

The impediments to resolving the ‘Kenneth’ case

The shame and disgrace of this case is that it has taken place in one of our prestigious Cathedrals and two of the perpetrators are a Dean and a senior Canon Pastor.

This case might have been resolved in September 2020 instead of which it has dragged on for a further two and a half years and still ongoing. The reason for this is that  there is indisputable evidence of conflict of interest. This has led to the deliberate withholding of substantial evidence by the Core Group and the Canon Pastor in particular which might have exonerated Kenneth.

The Canon Pastor openly supported the boy complainant and his mother (who was a significant part of the allegation). In September 2020 a formal complaint was made about this to the Dean but was ignored.

Criticism of Cathedral support for complainant came from an Independent Reviewer  September 2021 who said, ‘full consideration’ was not given to, ‘the case with the appointment of CSO [Cathedral Safeguarding Officer, Canon Pastor] continuing as the support officer for the victim and his mother’.

Lord Carlile spoke about the illegality of Core members having a conflict of interest (Micah 6:8 Initiative, 2020) and so did Dr Godfred Boahen, (‘Declaration of Interest’, 2021). Both of these have featured in our complaints but ignored, not even being acknowledged. The document From Dr Godfred Boahen was approved by the National Safeguarding Steering Group and in this group was the Diocesan Secretary who was also a Core Group member.

The Choral Registers

The case in point turns on the choir attendance registers which are not rotas, as the Core Group tries to maintain, but legal documents which are kept in the Cathedral library and should be available for scrutiny by any official body.  These are the records which determine the pay for each singer.

The boy complainant could not give any specific dates of incidents. Although a specific date of December 1st 2019 was given to LADO, Kenneth could prove beyond doubt he was not in the city that day.

The boy however did give three different spans of time which changed according to the person he was speaking to: the police, LADO or the Cathedral Safeguarding Officers. Kenneth realised in the widest time frame the boy gave that for many of the weeks he himself was abroad. He researched those weeks when he was back in the country and found that in those weeks the boy choristers had sung only three times.  He made a chart of those dates along with the chaperones on duty on each of those occasions. This was never followed through and the chaperones were never interviewed.

In September 2020 Kenneth asked the Canon Pastor, as the person responsible for the registers, if he could have the information as to whether or not he and the boy were together in the vestry at the same time on those three dates. If there was even only one date when they were not together it would throw doubt on the boy’s entire story because his only consistency of story has been, ‘three separate incidents’. If on one date they were not together then it begs the question of ,’when did the third incident take place?’ When could it possibly have taken place?

The Canon Pastor adamantly refused to give this information saying, “I’m afraid, though, that your request to in effect gather evidence is not something that sits comfortably within my pastoral role’. (September 29 2020).  At the time she was openly  pastorally supporting the boy and his mother which is recorded in a Core Group meeting found in a Subject Access Request document from Kenneth’s data base, held by the Diocese.  A formal complaint was made to the Dean about this conflict of interest but was ignored. The Canon Pastor continued in her refusal to give the information from the registers throughout  seven  complaints in fourteen months.

After not commenting on and ignoring all requests for the information in the registers, eighteen months later, in a meeting with Kenneth, the Canon Pastor said she felt it would still conflict with her role as Canon Pastor.(January 12th 2022)

 Latterly though, the Dean has taken part. At a risk assessment meeting on December 15th 2021, the Dean said, for the first time, that it was the Core Group who had refused access to the registers.  This had never been said before by him even though we had sent him our first formal complaint about her conflict of interest in 2020.

Subsequently he had been included in our complaints about the choral registers always naming the Canon Pastor; he never acknowledged these complaints. He involved himself again because on February 5th 2023, he told Kenneth that as the boy complainant could not give precise dates the charts were invalid. He had completely misunderstood the way in which the dates had been determined.

It would seem that the allegation could have been built on a tissue of lies but only looking in the registers would ascertain that. The Canon Pastor is refusing to do this because of her close relationship with the boy and his mother (facebook friends; I have the photo shots of some of these).

After  27 months has she really not been tempted to look in the registers? If the boy and Kenneth had been in the vestry together on those three dates surely this information could have been used to incriminate Kenneth?  They have tried other untruthful means to do this. If they were not together on any or all of those days the Canon Pastor must be held responsible for having allowed this case to drag on for almost three years without an investigation and based on deliberate and malicious fabrications.

In any case as the Canon Pastor had a conflict of interest in the case, this refusal was illegal because she had a vested interest in not revealing the information possibly of protecting the boy. Or now, after so long, herself?

Kenneth’s progress

in the meantime what has become of Kenneth? These last three years as you would expect have taken their toll. Perhaps if the information from the choral registers could have been given in September 2020 he might have been spared these years of suffering. If any of you have any questions you wish to ask me I can reply to them through the blog. Better still, if anyone knows anyway we can override the decision made by the Canon Pastor and gain access to the information, even at this late stage it would do Kenneth the world of good.

From  November 2022 to January 2023 he went to visit his brother who lives in the Far East. He travelled there in a wheelchair, and was looked after by airport staff.  I was shocked on his return to learn from his brother how he had noticed a serious deterioration in Kenneth’s health. So much worse than we had seen him in June. Kenneth does have chronic health issues of diabetes and what has been diagnosed as an ‘essential tremor’. The tremor especially was much worse.

His brother wrote to me:

The past 2 months spent with Kenneth have given me much concern for his health physical and mental. The events of the last few years have clearly taken their toll.

During a period of  illness from a stomach upset he had no recollection of what medication he had taken or should be taking and he was totally disorientated & just lay in bed in a darkened room. He was very unstable on his feet suffering a quite serious fall on his first night. We, my wife and son, were alarmed at how bad his tremors have become, at time making eating  & most other activities impossible.

I confess much  of what I saw during Kenneth’s stay left me concerned for his wellbeing. Other friends who remembered Kenneth from previous visits expressed  ‘surprise ‘ at his current state.

February 2023

You will be pleased to learn that Kenneth is now somewhat improved; his friends have rallied round him and he even goes swimming regularly.

Whilst the debates over sexuality gathered most of the headlines during last week’s General Synod, useful information has nevertheless been  forthcoming for those of us concerned about Safeguarding; “Let those who have ears to hear, hear” is a good text for the attentive, so here are my principle takeaways.

• The Archbishops and Church House did not dare to have an open debate about why the project known as the “ Independent Safeguarding Board” is in such deep trouble. 

• Bishop Pete Broadbent was absolutely right when he warned that 

“The platform tactic (from those leading debates and carrying forward the business of Synod) has been to attempt to keep questions about the Church’s safeguarding practice, past and present, off the floor of Synod. Attempts to inquisite the shortcomings of the National Safeguarding Team, the past failures of Bishops and the various ‘lessons learned reviews’ (from which we never seem to learn very much) have been seen off and resisted, leaving victims, survivors and those campaigning on their behalf with the sense that justice will never be done or seen to be done.” 

•   The ISB has itself identified to Archbishops’ Council serious problems concerning its creation and functionality, which include the following direct quotes from its website

• Church inaction in one area  “severely hampers the ISB’s ability to provide oversight and scrutiny …”

• “the Church of England has co-created a delivery vehicle that frustrates the ISB’s ability to assure a critical safeguarding service.

​​• The current position of the ISB in the Church’s infrastructure is     unsustainable” 

• The ISB does not consider that it is sufficiently independent from those it is responsible for scrutinising

• Half the membership of the Audit Committee of the Archbishops’ Council has raised concerns about the creation and functionality of the ISB, yet those concerns have been rebuffed.

• Nobody knows the composition of the delegation which spoke to the Charity Commission on behalf of Archbishops’ Council after governance failures were reported by a wide range of interested parties. 

• The New Director of Safeguarding needs all the support he can get.

The implications of these observations are important and profound; they go to the very heart of good governance of the Church of England and the continuing problems must once again be reported to the Charity Commission. This is not just about safeguarding it is about proper governance.

The ISB was the principal response of the CofE to IICSA and already it has failed in its present incarnation. That statement is not even controversial if you talk to members of Archbishops’ Council, or of the ISB. It needs reformation and everyone- not least the Church victims – knows this to be true. The $64 question is “when and by whom”.

Church House obstructed the attempts to place this in the agenda last week; we simply wanted to note the concerns of the Survivors and the ISB, place the matter on the agenda for July and ask the Audit Committee to look into why things went wrong.

Be very very clear, it was the latter proposition that spooked the Establishment at Church House and Lambeth Palace.

For all its rhetoric about transparency and accountability the CofE leadership resists the application of the Nolan principles for good conduct in public life at a visceral level. It will accept any amount of public embarrassment rather than submit to proper scrutiny into how it manages matters such as Safeguarding. 

The reason is simple; to undertake Safeguarding to the well established standards of the secular world,  you have to confront the unaccountable discretionary powers of the 42 Bishops each of whom acts with the autonomy of a medieval Prince Bishop. You simply cannot reconcile good Human Rights compliant safeguarding, with a structure still significantly operating within a 12th century mindset.

Synod has just voted through the necessary legislation to make Safeguarding “Advisers” in Dioceses into “Officers” who are independent of their Bishops. But they now report not to an independent oversight body, like perhaps the Independent Safeguarding Board, but instead to the Archbishops’ creation – the National Safeguarding Team. In the 1971 words of The Who, is this a case of “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” ?

When I began challenging Church thinking on Safeguarding in 2015 I made clear that the mantra “ Trust me -I’m a bishop” will not wash in the modern world. I was taken aside by a senior Bishop who patiently explained that I was trying to make them conform to the standards of the secular Safeguarding world, whereas “ We are building a system suitable for the Church of England”.

That turned out well didn’t it? 

During the Monday evening Question and Answer session a low key drama played out, the implications of which will have been missed by many members. You have to know how to “read the game” here.

A member asked if the Audit Committee had been asked to audit the creation of the Independent Safeguarding Board. This in itself should have caused a ripple of excitement. Every year, Synod nods through the routine report of the Audit Committee but it never contains anything headline-grabbing. Not that is, until now.

Now, it is being asked – and is also itself asking – to become involved in one of the major issues for the Church. Perhaps this is not so unusual given the millions of pounds being spent on inquiries and paid out to victims of wrongdoing by the Church as well as the reputational harm the constant scandals are doing to it. Safeguarding is an important matter. If the ISB is in crisis so soon, why is this? What went wrong? Who should we trust to put it right? 

The Audit Committee is a watchdog for Synod and has a supervisory role in anticipating and troubleshooting problems. In a different agenda item, one member of the Audit Committee described auditors as “always being able to find the cloud behind the silver lining”.

The question was answered by Maureen Cole who is not only the Chair of the Audit Committee but sits on the Archbishops’ Council. Curiously, neither the written answers provided nor she personally identified herself as having this dual role. She was put up to answer and repeated the mantra that the ISB is independent and not the Audit Committee business – but wait…. Why was she answering for the Archbishop’s Council if she is the Chair of the watchdog? “ A wo/man cannot serve two masters”. If Hogwarts had taught Harry Potter auditing skills alongside potions, advocating for the people you are supposed to be auditing would be one of the Unforgivable Curses.

She was then challenged by members of her owncommittee and was obliged to acknowledge that half of the committee had asked to look into the ISB creation and that the Archbishops’ Council – on whose behalf she was answering – had rejected such an inquiry.  And so we are back to a common theme in these matters – that of conflict of interest and lack of proper independence.

Further, as indicated from the quotations above, the independence of the ISB from the Archbishops’ Council was called into question by the ISB members themselves. It is a mess and needs looking into but there is reluctance to do so  by “ the powers that be”. It is a different problem to that identified by Bp Pete Broadbent but closely related.

Why does this matter?

Put simply, if the design of the ISB Constitution is flawed we need to understand why; nobody would ask that a replacement Grenfell Tower be designed and built by the same architects and construction company unless there had been a proper – and timely – inquiry into why the design failed in the first place.And the original architects and builders would not be trusted to report on what went wrong. The same applies to the ISB. I do not blame its members for the problems they report. Indeed, I praise them for acknowledging the weaknesses they have identifiedand clearly want to address.

I go further; I ask was the failure to give proper independence a matter of incompetence or symptomatic of a fundamental reluctance in Church House to relinquish power?

In another debate the Revd Andrew Dotchin spoke of the need to be trusting if projects are to take off under their own steam. “ If you give” he advised “ let go”.

That is a well formulated proposition and one I borrow in this context. Did the ISB fail because Lambeth Palace and Church House feared to surrender control over Safeguarding to a fully independent, autonomous body?

I suspect that this is the answer, but a proper investigation by the Audit Committee would help clarify this. Unfortunately the Archbishops’ obstruction means that the matter cannot be debated properly until July, and if Synod wants to review and oversee the new iteration of the ISB, that simply cannot happen until February 2024 . I suspect that by then another “ Bishops’ fix” will have been implemented and proper oversight circumvented again.  This is not just poor governance, it is flawed governance.

I wonder what IICSA, the Charity Commission and possibly even Parliament, who are now taking a close interest in the Church’s affairs because of LLF, will have to say about this.

When after more than two centuries as a leading merchant bank, Barings Bank collapsed in 1995, it was due to the misconduct of a single employee. The subsequent inquiry concluded that Barings was bankrupted due to an absence of effective controls and inadequate auditing. The ISB must not become the next Barings, and all praise to the three members of the Audit Committee who are apparently trying to prevent this. One hopes that the other two, independent members of the Audit Committee will join them to form a united front against the stone wall of the Archbishops Council.

There is however, some good news. The new NST Director Alex Kubeyinje began his first speech to Synod with an apology for the furore that had greeted his references to NST staff being threatened. If the giving of that early sincere apology heralds a change of culture at Church House then it is is to be doubly welcomed. He appears to be a quiet thoughtful man, not given to rhetorical flourishes. That too is to be welcomed. But most welcome of all is the fact that coming from the secular Safeguarding world I knew, I am confident that he knows how to do things properly. 

Whether he will be able to successfully challenge the existing Establishment mindset and culture remains to be seen. He will need all the help he can get including that of Survivors, whose contribution to the debate the Archbishops sadly preferred Synod not to hear about.

by Simon Richiardi

Editorial Comment.

Last week the Church gave to the world the impression that there is only one subject of interest for them to think about and debate – sex and marriage. Surviving Church has taken the view that this topic has received more discussion than it probably deserves. Those who oppose the proposal that same-sex couples should be allowed to receive the Church’s blessing belong to many conservative churches both within and outside the Anglican family of churches. Chief among the arguments opposing these same-sex blessings is the notion that there is a clear ‘biblical’ idea of marriage between one man and one woman. That claim seems doubtful, particularly if we study the Old Testament with its apparent acceptance of concubinage and polygamy. The following contribution from Simon Richiardi helps us to understand the culture of some conservative Christians and the way they view marriage. There is much in the narrative about control. There is a strong adherence to the idea that anything that deviates from a strictly controlled conservative perspective must be resisted. It is also a case study of how carefully selected biblical passages about marriage, to put it mildly, do not always smoothly translate into good practice. Indeed, ‘biblical teaching’ in the hands of an authoritarian pastor may turn out to be the cause of toxic harm. There is much worthy of comment in this piece but I will leave it to my readers to draw from the text what thy feel is salient to the current debates in the wider Church. The account, no doubt, would read very differently if written from the perspective of a woman.

We were the marriage church.  Not the church to get married in; it was much better than that.  We were the church that did marriage.  And although no-one ever said it, the word “properly” floated ghost-like in the air over conversations about marriage.  We did marriage properly. 

           The teaching was this, essentially: Christians shouldn’t date; they should marry.  No dating.  Just seek God’s will and he will give you a verse or two indicating who your intended is and  – boom – instant …. What?  Holiness?  Being better than other churches?

To give some context, I was a studying at a university in the UK about 20 years ago, and in the Christian Union and attached churches I first came to know Reformed Theology and practice.  Phrases like “sound doctrine”, “the flesh” and the debate between Arminianism and Calvinism became part of my mental world. I heard it said that studying liberal theology leaves a scar on the psyche of a Christian; these days I feel the same about Reformed Theology.

           I was suffering from mental health problems but being part of an Evangelical world then did not encourage me to seek help outside of that, if, indeed, it was even granted that mental illness existed at all.  And if it was conceded that something like these existed, then the answer was, of course, found in Christian books and teachings and not the suspicious philosophies and practices of psychology or counselling.  SO, naturally I looked for answers in house as it were.

           I came under the influence of an American Pastor (and he was a pastor with a big ‘P’) who led a small, independent Baptist church.  He was a charismatic figure, and his life story was dramatic, full of drugs and drama before he became a Christian.  As someone who was very unsure of himself,  I was drawn to his loud, dramatic style of preaching, alongside the sense of self-assuredness and certainty in his belief in God.  Eventually, we became friends and I would say that he “led me to the Lord”, as the saying goes.

           But during my second or third year, a particular teaching slowly sneaked its way onto the agenda.  Softened up by exposure to American books like I Kissed Dating Goodbye, the church became obsessed – and I think obsessed is an accurate word – with the notion of how Christians get married.  Dating was portrayed as not quite trusting God for your future spouse.  The real people of faith prayed, and when God told the man to ask for a woman’s hand in marriage then they could do so.  Or they could ask the pastor to approach the woman for them.

           As a very anxious and shy individual, I was anxious about approaching a woman for a date.  Well, this just took all that away!  Just get God to do it for you and forego all the relational learning and maturing one gets from just being with people.  A cliché I often hear in church at the moment is about “the messiness of life”, and it’s a cliché I agree with.  Life is messy, and what we were being taught was an attempt to deny this.

           But marriage was spoken about all the time.  When would you get married?  Is marriage on your mind?  Sitting under all this was the slightly icky – messy – fact of sexual desire.  The word “marriage” was if not a synonym for “sex”, then inextricably bound up with it.  For some reason, we needed to police this aspect of humanity quite stringently.

           What happened was very simple: over the next couple of years, people got married. They got on the conveyor belt and  – bam! – instant conjugal happiness.  But this wasn’t enough, just for us to enjoy the people getting married in our church.  Other Christians needed to know about this.  They needed to know about it even if they didn’t want to.   They didn’t know what they needed.  The teaching needed to “get out there”.

           A booklet was written detailing the stories of three couples who got married via this teaching.  It was called, in the most passive-aggressive misquoting of Scripture ever, “A more Excellent Way.”  One of the men involved was even trying to expand it into a book.  When the pastor was invited to speak somewhere, he took the booklet with him.  We had a product and it had to be exported.

           And it’s about here that my personal story intersects with all of this.  I had stayed on at university to study an MA in Creative Writing.   During my MA I think I fell in love with a woman at the church – or was very attracted to her.  Of course, I did nothing other than pray.  And I feel the emphasis on marriage was a problem to someone who was struggling to find their way in life.  Despite the MA – which I struggled through, I felt very directionless in life and my confidence was very low.  To then dwell on a romance sanctioned by God was to some degree a way of escaping the pressure of life decisions I felt unequal to the task of making.  I didn’t talk about it with anyone because I felt they wouldn’t understand my lack of confidence; I felt ashamed.  I needed proper psychotherapeutic help of some sort, but this tended to be viewed under the sniffy term “fleshly”. 

           I want to be clear: I wasn’t pointed to this person by anyone; I was drawn to her.  Perhaps under different circumstances we could have tried to build a life together.  But what circumstance we were in!  Take the following as an example:

 Always an aggressive speaker (I remember him banging the glass of drinking water he had on the table at the front of the church in frustration at people not changing the way he expected them to), it took a new turn.  At least twice in the sermon he said this to the church: “People think I shout too much, that I’m too intense.  But I was in my car before church one evening, and I was praying.  I said, ‘God, they don’t want me.  They think I shout too much.’  And God said, ‘Well, you tell ‘em from me’.”

           At the time I was troubled by this; it felt dangerous, but I brushed aside my intuitions because “He knew what he was doing; he was the Pastor.”  Now I can see it for what it is, even though my stomach still clenches in anxiety that it might just be God speaking, and that is using the position of power afforded him to intimidate the congregation into compliance.  It is an example of coercive control rather than, as I believed then, God communicating himself to us.

           That is the most brutal example, the only one when a part of me began to question the Pastor’s example.  But what it shows had always been there, was always in the water, had already been working its effect on me.

           Despite the fact that there was a great deal of talk of God’s grace, the power games which were being played out told a different story about who God is and how to relate to him.  He was a God to be feared, to be intimidated by. 

           But this is the sort of event which I look back at now and wonder how I could have been taken in.  I still, 20 years later, think “how did I allow myself to be so manipulated?”

           It was in this environment that I asked a woman to marry me.  I was unsure about doing this, and I made the mistake of confiding in a friend at the church.  His advice was, “If it’s wrong, then God will providentially stop it from happening.”  I was manipulated into getting engaged when I was very unsure about doing it.

           I won’t dwell on the story as it is too painful, but I experienced a loss of control, a loss of authority in my life which is almost too unbearable to recount.  I spoke to my parents who recognised symptoms of anxiety and depression.  They in their turn contact the Pastor in the hope that he would convince me to see a doctor.  They didn’t realise that he would do no such thing. 

           The church believed in Victory!  Bright, shining, grandiose, heavily booted Victory, which trounced all opposition.  I was fed the theology of my Triumphant Identity in Christ, but it is very hard to accept that when one’s autonomy has been so compromised.  And now it seems that the Pastor was not interested in my well-being or well-being of my fiancée; what they wanted was a result!  Me healed via his ministry and then married.  Victory.

           Victory or Control?  There was no patience, no interaction with anyone which did not end with “well, are you going to obey God?”  This was a church where the Pastor had once preached “ When God says, ’Jump’, we say, ‘How High?’”  That’s how obedience was taught to us.  And Pressure was the great teacher.  When the world pressured us, then God grew us.  When my depression didn’t get better, when I didn’t want to marry this woman, then I was disobedient.  I was in rebellion.  I “made Jesus, the Messiah, a liar.”

           The last time I was in that church I had broken off the engagement.  I also took communion, and the Pastor intimated to me, in front of other people, that I shouldn’t have taken communion because I was walking in known disobedience to God.  There was a hint of a warning there.

           I left the church after that night and returned to live with my parents, something which leaves me with a feeling of failure.  It has taken me nearly 20 years to process this experience, years to begin to see it as a period when I was emotionally abused and manipulated in an atmosphere very similar to a cult.  Sadly, much of the processing has taken place in secular environments because churches, no matter how well-intentioned, give very little space for someone to talk about these experiences. 

At the beginning of this week, we looked forward to seeing some challenges at General Synod to the protocols around the Church of England’s safeguarding work.  Any such challenge was effectively blocked by a refusal to allow a following motion from Synod member, Martin Sewell. The details of this were ably set out by David Lamming in the previous blog.  This, among other things, questioned the absence of any mention of the Independent Safeguarding Board in the Synod papers.   Today, the hour given over at Synod to a consideration of safeguarding was a low-key affair.  The departing bishop with special responsibility for safeguarding, Jonathan Gibbs, said all the right things but there was little spark in what was said by him or in the presentation by the Director of the NST, Alexander Kubeyinje.  The challenge to the authority of Synod caused by the side-lining of an independent oversight body, the ISB, might well have raised the temperature of the debate.  In the event the Synod seemed exhausted from the earlier discussions on Living with Love and Faith.  Although the ISB was airbrushed out of the debate, the importance of a third-party independent scrutiny of the Church’s work in the area of safeguarding remains as vital as ever.  What follows are some thoughts on this theme. These were written by me last weekend before the debate.  The Church authorities may have marginalised the ISB for the time being, but the issue of independent oversight remains important.  If there are problems (as identified below) with the ISB as presently constituted, the way forward is to engage with the issues rather than airbrush them out of existence, as the Church seems intent on doing.

 The Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB) came into being just over 12 months ago.  It was an initiative of the Archbishops’ Council (AC) of the Church of England, and it was conceived as a new body able to provide independent scrutiny of the various safeguarding bodies in the Church.   Since its founding the group has lurched from crisis to crisis.  It is hard to see that, in its present configuration, it will be able to survive and serve the Church in the future.  In this piece I cannot attempt to address all the issues that have emerged about the ISB in recent days and weeks.    Somewhat provocatively, any mention of the ISB has been expunged from the official safeguarding papers being distributed to Synod members.  What follows here may be regarded as some background information for anyone trying to follow the recent complicated politics of safeguarding.  Interest in the topic is widespread and we owe it to the overall subject to express our concern and interest for the issue.

This blog, for the sake of simplicity, is going only to discuss three points which pertain to the current ISB saga.  The storyline related to this organisation has become convoluted. Something of this complexity is reflected in the fact that the Church Times in its current edition (February 3^rd), gives space for three separate stories about the ISB.  I do not propose to go into each of these threads.  My method for presenting something of this continuing ISB saga, as well as presenting a personal slant on what is going on, is through asking questions.   In this attempt to ask questions, I hope I can give a fair-minded approach to some of the current problems facing the ISB and its relationship with the wider Church.

The first basic question which is fundamental to any understanding of the difficulties at Synod and the reports in the Church Times is this.  What is the ISB for?    A part of the answer is that the ISB was set up by the AC to provide ‘professional supervision to (but not line management of) the Director of the National Safeguarding Team (NST)’. This supervision is combined with the task of ‘receiving and responding to complaints about the NST’s handling of cases.’  There are another 14 items in the ISB’s terms of reference which appeared when the group first came into being.  One might expect that an effective response, even merely for the delivery of the two tasks mentioned, would involve the gathering of quite a substantial team of professional individuals.  Although there are plans for expansion, the ISB currently consists of, up till now, 3 part time employees with secretarial support.  As most people are aware, one of the three, the Chair Maggie Atkinson, has been required to ‘step back’ over a data breach allegation.  A complaint about this has been upheld by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).  So far no one has found a way of making a decision as to whether the suspension is permanent or not.  The other two members of the ISB bravely soldier on.  

This question, what is the ISB for, carries with it a second subsidiary question.  Does the group, (even with a promised input of new staff), realistically stand a chance of fulfilling these 16 terms of reference?  There are some basic problems.  Nothing I say here is any personal criticism of the actual individuals who work for the ISB.  They have been recruited from a pool of highly experienced individuals who presumably understand, among other things, management theory and the inner workings of organisations.  All three have also been chosen from outside church circles.  This is to enable them to achieve the necessary level of independence of church politics. There is of course one key problem in appointing people who have no background knowledge of the structure they are being asked to support.  They naturally find it extremely hard to understand the mind-set of those they are overseeing.  In this blog we have had cause to question the background knowledge of those who work for the NST.  It is never just a matter of absorbing new information; there needs to be an immersion into a new professional culture which may be initially alien to the newcomer.  The ISB member, Jasvinda Sanghera, who comes with significant background in the needs of survivors, has gleaned her expertise, I understand, from working with victims of domestic violence.  There may well be overlaps with survivors of spiritual and sexual abuse in a Christian context, but there are also massive differences.  Those of us who have been involved in the discussion about safeguarding for a moderate length of time, are constantly concerned at the way professionals in safeguarding roles have huge gaps in what we refer to as the ‘corporate memory’ around the topic.   When it was suggested recently that the remaining two members of the ISB undertake the writing of a report on the Martyn Percy saga, those of us who have seen even a little of the enormous quantity of material that pertains to this case, immediately wondered how many man-hours would be required just to arrive the starting block to undertake such an enquiry.  Apart from the mass of factual material to be mastered, there is the cultural background of church and college to be comprehended.  It seemed wise for the Archbishop’s Council to withdraw the ISB from this massive undertaking, even though the ISB itself has expressed its displeasure at this decision.  It will continue to be a challenge for the AC to find the expertise and the understanding of university/church protocol to undertake this task.  One fears that such an enquiry may find itself in the same position as the Makin enquiry – over-time and overstretched.

The third question we have to ask of the ISB is the one concerning its own internal relationships.  There has been in the publicly shared publications by the ISB a suggestion of internal friction within the membership.  One has the gospel passage about Beelzebub in mind, where Jesus said ‘Can a kingdom divided against itself stand?’.  It is hard, if not impossible, for a small part time group to involve itself in overseeing a large institution like the NST and its dozens of employees when it has the distraction of division in its ranks and run-ins with the ICO.  Such institutional malfunctions are serious and cannot be glided over without questions being asked.  The third question for the ISB is simply this.  Given the fact that there are reported divisions in the ISB, and your chair has been found to have failed to keep data safe, is it realistic to expect survivors and the public at large to have, in the near future, confidence in your ability to get important work done?

The ISB has been functioning for a year and it has been noted by Martin Sewell and others that, in the papers about safeguarding for this week’s Synod, even a mere mention of the ISB is nowhere to be found.  This is possibly an attempt by the AC to bury an expensive project under the carpet with the hope that no one will notice.  We might have some understanding for those who thought up the birthing of the ISB as a way of regaining the respect of society after the severe mauling of the CofE by the officers of the Independent Inquiry over Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).  Somewhere along the line, this project of the AC has failed to deliver what was hoped for.  The need for a completely independent body to oversee safeguarding in the CofE is still required, but the ISB has, arguably, not turned out to be the correct tool.  It is not the competence of the individual members of the ISB that I am raising here.  The fault seems to lie further back.  It falls on those who had an idea of what was needed, but set it up prematurely.   The IICSA challenge to the CofE to provide independent oversight of its own protocols for safeguarding remains.  Can the Church show itself able to administer a system of safeguarding without outside supervision?   The muddles and missteps that may be revealed at Synod this coming week perhaps indicate that the Church is indeed unable to manage in this area of creating a safe environment which enables those who have been damaged by its own employees to find a way to move forward and maybe even to flourish and grow.