by Martin Sewell

When the General Synod of the Church of England meets next week in London, all the attention will be on the well publicised issue of same sex marriage. This is not unreasonable, but it also means that another of the major issues undermining the Church in the eyes of the public, has been pushed way down the agenda. The continuing  issue of the Church’s poor response to survivors and victims is important and it deserves no less publicity.

Unlike so much that goes on at Synod, this is a scandal which is entirely self made and capable of ready resolution, if only there was the desire, drive, commitment, and competence to do so.

Importantly there is significant grass roots unity on these matters across all the traditions; there is no theology in favour of abuse and bullying, and there are people of principle across the traditions who set aside other differences and keep banging their heads against the institutional brick wall whilst the leadership chant their mantra “ we are on a journey”.

Synod members cannot fix climate change, they are gridlocked over gay marriage and most of the general public are not paying attention anyway; the public does know however, that the Church has a well documented history of letting survivors down very badly – often for decades. A bold initiative in this area would demonstrate that we “practise what we preach”. We are still waiting for it.

In February 2023,  Safeguarding has been relegated to the “ graveyard slot” on Thursday afternoon when some folks will be getting ready to catch trains to Truro or Carlisle. It is hardly worth staying for. All members will be offered is a “ presentation with questions” – one question permitted each. That is no basis upon which to hold power to account and that is entirely why General Synod has found itself managed into impotence by the House of Bishops and Church House.

This time however, a group of survivors have prepared their own briefing which is being offered to the Synod members – 60% of whom are new and vulnerable to the kind of blandishments which have stonewalled survivors for years.

This briefing can be read here at https://houseofsurvivors.org/shared-files/1822/?SYNOD-SAFEGUARDING-BRIEFING-FINAL.pdf

Its clarity and focus contrasts significantly with the official report to Synod GS2293 https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/GS%202293%20Safeguarding.pdf which is reeks of management-speak and is almost unreadable which cynics might think is not accidental.

There is a  clearer second report GS1335 https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/GS%20Misc%201335%20NST%20update.pdf one passage of which  does deserve particular attention. In it, the newly appointed Director of the National Safeguarding Team Alexander Kubeyinje raises the important issue of the abuse that his team members are occasionally subjected to.

I have met Alex on one occasion. I found him a good attentive listener and I wish him well in his role. It helps enormously that he has been recruited from the same secular safeguarding culture in which I practiced as a lawyer and so we are very much “on the same page in terms of how things are best done. We can get down to business without  the preliminary of “comparing notes”.

I am therefore very happy to highlight and endorse his plea for his staff to be respectfully treated and to unequivocally to condemn any improper behaviour. He writes

3.1.  I have been taken aback with the amount of abuse, bullying and harassment that colleagues receive and threat to life on occasions. This has predominately been from a small number of survivors , advocates and others who have concerns with regards to safeguarding across the wider church community . The NST are at the forefront of this abuse which has a detrimental impact on them and their families. I have not witnessed or been informed of any bullying or harassment within the NCI’s .

3.2.  All of them come to work to do a good job, but this is often received with abuse and harassment. However, there is not always a sense of how staff can be protected from such horrific abuse and bullying.

3.3.  As a Church we do have a duty of care to them. There are both legal and moral obligations to protect staff from this. As a result of this, staff will often shut down and not want to engage with the people who are abusing staff which in turn has a detrimental effect on all involved. It must be noted this behaviour is across the NCI’s and is directed from the wider church community to every level of the organisation.

Nobody and nothing should detract from that message, but I think it is proper to make a simple reference to the 1987 Cleveland Report which is one of the foundational documents of the secular safeguarding culture from which both Alex and I come.

Chapter 13.18 of that report addressed a similar issue in respect of parents whose children were at risk of removal by social workers – sometimes a necessary but always an acutely stressful time for all involved. Baroness Elizabeth Butler Sloss wrote

“Families who are in crisis have a heightened emotional response. Anger aggressive destructive behaviour and the possibility of violent impulsive reactions may need to be faced.  The social worker needs to maintain an open structured relationship with the family whatever the social workers personal feelings, it is important to avoid a judgemental or accusatory attitude towards a parent who is a possible perpetrator; the risk of suicide amongst perpetrators who are able to acknowledge their abusive behaviour to themselves or others must be recognised….. Social workers must develop the skill of respecting and supporting the persons without endorsing or colluding with their acknowledged or suspected patterns of behaviour”.

That which is true of stressed perpetrators is no less true of the Church’s innocent victims who routinely find their lives in tatters, in chronic and acute need and running up against  what they perceive to be an unsympathetic bureaucratic structure. When you have walked a few paces in their shoes, being passed from pillar to post around a variety of Church layers at Diocesan and National level with everyone passing the buck and nobody holding ultimate responsibility,  you may not condone –  but you understand why people end up raging against the machine.

Alex is right in bringing this to our attention, but how quickly we are able to solve this particular problem will surely depend on how quickly and effectively we grasp the handful of nettles which make up so many aspects of the Church’s current safeguarding dysfunctionality.

We know we have to put proper structures in place  for the benefit of our victims: we know that doing so can only be for the benefit of the Church’s reputation. Alex, inadvertently but entirely properly and relevantly,  offers a third reason to make our structures and systems as smooth  accessible transparent and effective as possible  – we owe it to our staff who bear the brunt of the frustration caused by the ineffectuality of the current Church  leadership

The Church of England is to have yet another Lead Bishop for Safeguarding.  The Bishop of Stepney, Joanne Grenfell is to take up this difficult but important task at the end of March.  She takes over from Jonathan Gibbs, the Bishop of Rochester.

Any bishop who is unfortunate to have this safeguarding role laid upon them, would seem to deserve our sympathies.  It is a task almost impossible to do satisfactorily.  Why do I say this?  Regardless of experience, qualifications and background knowledge, any bishop who takes on this role is almost bound to fail to win approval from all the stakeholders.  A safeguarding lead bishop from day 1 is going to be pulled in two strongly opposing directions.  These are probably impossible to reconcile.  On the one side there is the army of survivors and victims who believe that a senior Church of England figure will have the power to resolve their complaints against the system, either as someone falsely accused, or as a survivor.  The lead bishop may have enormous compassion for these individuals caught up in the safeguarding meat grinder.  In practice he/she has neither the time nor authority to do anything significant to change the situation for them.  On the opposite side there are the people of power in Church House or Lambeth Palace who ultimately make the decisions about the mechanisms of safeguarding.  For them, the Lead Bishop is an important bulwark of defence against the torrent of complaints that regularly come from members of the church to the central bodies.  The Lead Bishop has to be discouraged by these men of power from making any promises – financial or pastoral – that cannot be met.  Everything in the church’s protocol must be done in an orderly fashion.  In practice, this involves delay and spinning out cases so that the minimum resources have to be used up in dealing with the endless safeguarding torrent.  How any individual could survive having these two contradictory roles at the same time – listening to the pain of victims and defending the institution – is beyond me.

One detail about the lead safeguarding role announcement now being handed on to +Joanne, and which comes to her rescue, is the fact that appointment is only to be held for three years.  There are two ways of looking at this time limit.  One is to note that three years are by no means long enough to get to grips with all the multiplicities of knowledge that are potentially required of anyone doing this job.  I have, on this blog, set out some of the skills that I believe are required from an individual seeking to be considered a safeguarding expert.  They are clearly likely to be beyond the capability of any single individual.  An understanding of law, psychodynamic theory, organization theory, history, theology and trauma studies should ideally be expected of anyone claiming even a modicum of expertise.  This list could be lengthened further.  Safeguarding is not a set of skills that can be acquired overnight. 

The brevity of the term of office for the safeguarding lead can be understood to have another purpose.   Alongside the difficulty of fulfilling the expectations that I mentioned above, there is another way that a brief period of office can serve a valuable purpose.  It allows those with power, but hidden behind the scenes in the Church, to retain their control of the whole process.   No one who serves only three years in any role within an organisation, is ever to be fully on top of the skills that they need.  By default, those who appoint them (and control them) will always have the power to set the agenda over the way the job is done.  Scope for independent initiative in this area is extremely limited.  The same constraints seem to apply to anyone holding senior office in the CofE. From the Archbishop downwards, senior clergy all appear to be speaking from a single agreed script.  This has all the appearance of being thought up and curated by invisible teams of advisers and public relations personnel.

When we take a closer look at the situation of the current Bishop of Stepney, we find additional factors in the appointment that are a cause for concern.  These may seriously compromise her ability to do the job.  +Joanne is said to be experienced on safeguarding matters, and this interest would certainly have given her detailed knowledge of what has been happening in her area of London.  She will know all the background detail of two major safeguarding episodes. Many would refer to them as scandals.  She will be aware, in the first place, of all the anxiety raised among many of her clergy in her area over the ‘information dump’ made by Martin Sargeant at the end of his time working for the diocese.  There are many threads to this story, but the one that must have touched +Joanne (and given her sleepless nights) was the anxiety experienced by many of her clergy who lived with the thought that some uncorroborated safeguarding accusation was going to be made against them. No one has accepted any responsibility for Father Griffin’s suicide.  No doubt more information will emerge but, until it does, there is, I understand, a state of acute mistrust among many clergy over the behaviour of senior staff in the Diocese.  They must have serious questions as to whether the senior clergy are capable of bringing the sequence of events that were set off by the Griffin suicide to some satisfactory conclusion.

Another safeguarding episode that continues to haunt the part of London over which Joanne has episcopal oversight, is the case of Survivor N.  The details of this story have appeared the Church of England Newspaper and elsewhere.  It will certainly be familiar to +Joanne, even though she was not Bishop of Stepney as the time of the alleged offences. It is unnecessary for me to name the individuals mentioned in the saga.  In summary, it is a highly credible story of homosexual abuse with a CDM taken out against a well-connected clergyman who holds a post in Joanne’s area. Because of the power/status of the alleged offender, Survivor N was subject to some unpleasant harassment, including legal threats from the diocesan lawyers.  The failures in this case seem to have been chronic on the part of the Diocesan authorities.  Even though the whole episode started before +Joanne’s time, and her personal leadership is not a issue in the case, she is still part of a senior team responsible for bringing justice and closure to the events. Survivor N was let down very badly and was driven to attempt suicide. The current failure is in the fact that the case has still not, to my knowledge, reached a conclusion.  The pattern that seems to prevail is that, when  CDMs are taken out against senior clergy, the eventual judgements are not given any publicity.  In this case the complaint and the victim’s pain received an international notoriety.  This was to do with coverage in the press, and partly because a song about the case was composed and performed by a well-known Irish folk group.  We hope that the CDM complaints will not be allowed to fade away.  I also hope my readers will listen to this song from last August 2022 and feel some of the passionate anger expressed by the musicians on behalf of the victim/survivor.  https://survivingchurch.org/2022/08/29/a-song-from-ireland-in-support-of-survivors-of-church-abuse/  The survivor himself was much helped by the thought that an internationally acclaimed music group had taken up his cause in standing up to the power of the London Diocese.

One of the features of the lyrics of the song, Collusion, is the naming of a firm, employed by the London diocese for crisis management, that took a full part in the persecution of Survivor N. This crisis management company, Luther Pendragon, is also used by the Church of England centrally as well as at least three dioceses, including Winchester and Oxford.  The reputation of this firm with other survivors is, to say the least, extremely low.

+Joanne thus now finds herself in a diocese plagued with some serious unresolved safeguarding episodes.  There may well be others not in the public domain.  Regardless of the personal and professional skills that +Joanne can bring to the post, one cannot help but question whether a diocese with such serious outstanding safeguarding crises is the right platform from which to advise the national Church.  Is it not difficult to promote good practice right across the Church of England dioceses when the situation in the home diocese is, to say the least, messy and confused?  The job of being lead bishop on safeguarding is a tough and unglamorous undertaking.  Can we realistically expect excellent service from a junior bishop who seems already to have a plate-full of safeguarding issues to deal with in her own local area?

I end with the final lines of the lyrics about Survivor N’s story.  It raises a question for my readers and all who have responsibility for bringing justice and compassion to the Church.

I sing of gentle people daring to complain

I do not sing for vengeance, I do not sing for gain

I sing that Christianity be Christian once again

It was announced in another blog that Michael Reid, the former head of Peniel Church in Brentwood, died on Friday 13^th January 2023.  Those who have followed this blog for a long time will be familiar with the name.  My interest in this larger-than-life charismatic leader formed an important focus for this blog over a period in around 2015. 

Why was writing about Michael Reid and Peniel important to me in the early days of Surviving Church?  The simple answer is that Reid became, for me, a classic embodiment of many of the outrageous examples of spiritual power abuse that I was uncovering when I started my study of the topic 20 -30 years ago.   In the mainstream churches, by contrast, such things were being better concealed in the 90s.  My documented case studies, as readers of Ungodly Fear will know, came mainly from free churches on the fundamentalist/charismatic end of the spectrum.  Back in 1998 when I was writing the book, I was aware of Reid’s church, Peniel Brentwood, which was an independent charismatic congregation.  My wife and I visited the church and attended a service around that time, but loud alarm bells did not ring immediately.  It was only a little later, after my book had been published, that I realised that Peniel and its leader, Reid, was a vivid example of a church that contained many examples of the toxic abusive behaviour that I had been describing in my book.  I started to correspond with one Nigel Davies, a blogger whose family had been seriously damaged through membership of this congregation.  He has, right up till today, used the power of protest to demonstrate in person outside the church, now known as Trinity Brentwood.  Over the years his protests have been extended to include other congregations within the Elim network.  This is the denominational grouping that Peniel (now called Trinity Brentwood) chose to identify itself with after Reid was forcibly removed as leader in 2008.

For those of my readers who have the time/interest to look it up, there is a great deal of information on this blog from around 2015 about the appalling events in this congregation under Reid. After the forced resignation in 2008, there was a brief ‘Prague Spring’, but it soon reverted to its old controlling and abusive ways under a new leadership.  Peniel/Trinity cannot be the only church that finds it hard to face up to the legacy of a past abusive history.   Reid had been sacked for sexual misdemeanours (consensual? adultery), but the appalling trail of cultic intimidation and financial skulduggery was, arguably, even more serious.  Eventually the church agreed to investigate its own past after a credible complaint of rape was made against one of its own members.  The report that appeared in the autumn of 2015 and to which I attach a link at the end, is a very important document even seven years later. This report, written by an eminent evangelical lawyer called John Langlois, runs to some 200,000 words.  It was, and remains in my belief, the best and most vivid and detailed account of a British church committing abuse against its own membership.   At the time that it was released, I frequently referred to this Langlois report on this blog as a way of illustrating how the narcissistic behaviour of one man could create so much havoc and pain for so many.

The removal of Reid was not easily achieved.  Court cases had to be fought as Reid regarded the church buildings and plant as belonging to him personally. By 2008 the church had, through the dint of congregational financial sacrifice, acquired a considerable portfolio of property, including a large premises for a school.  This building later sold for £6m.  One part of the battle that Nigel Davies has been valiantly fighting for, is that some of this money, accumulated by the bullying techniques of Reid and his henchmen and women, should be used to compensate some of those who had lost everything in terms of education, mental health and financial stability because of their involvement in the church.  Although Reid’s name is now probably no longer discussed or remembered by the current congregation, Davies claims that much of the wealth of the church belongs morally to a past generation who were ruthlessly exploited and abused while members of Peniel.

When recording the death of an individual, it is customary to add the letters RIP to the name.  In this case I hesitate to do this.  This is because of the way that so many individuals, young and old at Peniel, lost their peace by having it taken from them.  My blogging work brought me into direct touch with several Peniel survivors, including an American girl who had come to Brentwood in the 90s to study at the so-called Peniel Bible School.  Instead of learning, this cadre of girls were exploited as cheap labourers for the Church.  Those who administered the scheme made sure that they could not escape by confiscating their passports on arrival and intercepting their letters from home.  Exploitation of vulnerable foreign girls sometimes extended to a situation of sexual abuse.   It was, in fact, in response to one specific complaint of such abuse, that the church was forced to set up Langlois’ investigation.  Also, the entire congregation had experienced forced labour, by having to turn out regularly to work on the estate and the grounds.  This was expected of the youngest children as well. All this is described in great detail in Langlois’ report.

When I was writing my commentaries in 2015 on Reid’s behaviour as revealed by Langlois, I was always hoping that such behaviour would never be found in the Church of England.  While it is true that the cult-like atmosphere of Reid’s congregation would be difficult to find in an ordinary CofE parish, there are still many, some uncomfortably close, parallels in common church leadership styles.  Langlois described many of the classic power games and techniques at work in Reid’s leadership style.  We find the typical methods of coercion and control, including shaming and ostracism.  Reid also seems to have enjoyed playing off one family against another, retaining to himself the power of supreme authority.  It is first from reading about Reid that I learned some of the classic biblical texts used by abusive leaders against those seeking accountability.  ‘Touch not the Lord’s Anointed’ and ‘Obey your leaders and defer to them’.  These were the passages quoted endlessly by Reid in the ruthless manipulation of the people in his congregation.  Obeying Reid meant, for example, cruelly turning the back on those who decided to leave, after daring to question Reid’s leadership.

Peniel/Trinity Brentwood concerns have disappeared for seven years from the discussion in this blog.  I could be said to have moved on from considering the horrors of Peniel in Brentwood.  Reid’s death, however, has had the effect of triggering a memory of his abuse horrors. I am reminded of my own reflections and attempts to understand the wickedness of Reid and the way he acted with such appalling cruelty against the people he was supposed to care for spiritually.  The Langlois report continues to remind us that spiritual/power/sexual abuse is alive and well in the Church and those of us who see this must do all we can to expel it from Christian circles.

Some concluding reflections on church power abuse, triggered by the death of Michael Reid

1 Any church leader, who works in a pre-existing or created hierarchy, will experience the temptation to obtain gratification by ‘lording it over the flock’.  A church leader needs to have a strong system of self-awareness and accountability that makes it difficult to succumb to this temptation.   Just because a candidate for ministry may begin training strongly imbued with a desire to serve, it does not mean that this sense of humility will stay the course, without the need for constant monitoring.

2 A temptation to exercise power inappropriately in a church is normally found in one or more of three areas, power/status, sex and money.  Male pastors seem to be more readily attracted by power abuses than the female.  Female power gratification does, of course, exist.   I do not need to spell out the appalling damage that sexual power abuse can wreak in a congregation whether directed against adults or children.  Financial dishonesty, or even a preoccupation with financial power can also create serious damage to a church.  It does not have to be illegal to be corrupting. It is a temptation for some to see financial success as spiritual success when it may be no such thing.  Tithing is not biblical, whatever ‘prosperity’ teachers may declare.  There is nothing in Scripture to suggest that all our charitable generosity should be directed at and through our local church and its leaders.  Indeed, handing over so much financial power to church leaders may create the conditions for abusive power that are spiritually and morally dangerous.

3.  Michael Reid’s legacy of causing pain, humiliation and lasting damage to many of his flock at Brentwood is a learned lesson to be heeded by every congregation.  A full 14 years since his forced retirement, means that only a few will now remember his life and career. The fact that there exists an extensive and detailed report of all the failings of his congregational oversight and the sheer suffering he inflicted on young and old, means that something is left, albeit negative, of his ministry.  The events and pain inflicted on so many at Brentwood between 1980 and 2008 are episodes that should never be allowed to be buried in the mists of history.

The Langlois report on Peniel Church Brentwood 2015

https://www.dropbox.com/s/e3578t7pt87jvci/Langlois%20report.pdf?dl=0

In the last couple of days an important decision from the Solicitors Regulation Authority concerning the CofE has appeared in the public domain.  It is not a story recounting outrageous immorality on the part of a church leader, though the report does have a link with the late Bishop Peter Ball and his crimes.  It recounts the unprofessional behaviour of a single individual who used to work as Registrar or chief legal officer for the Anglican Diocese of Gloucester.  The officer concerned, Christopher Peak, has now seen his registration as a solicitor removed by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.  This story has some importance in the wider relationships between the Church and the legal institutions of this country.  Every member of the Church is, in a slight way, affected by the special legally enforceable rules that operate in the work of the national Church.  There are certainly hundreds of professionals who are employed to oversee legal matters in the dioceses and at a national level.  It is to be hoped that these qualified professionals will always give good service for the substantial sums of money that they earn to manage this aspect of church life.

At the heart of this legal story is not a decision or a court case.  It is the account of a total absence, over a twenty-year period, of any challenge or legal questioning over a legal saga.  The context of the case is the arrest and subsequent Caution of the then Bishop of Gloucester, Peter Ball for offences against young men.  This part of the story is well-known. Having voluntarily agreed to vacate his see in 1992, Ball went on to an active retirement ministry for some twenty years.  Eventually the case was re-examined, and Ball served a fifteen-month sentence in prison for his offences.   The part of the story that is less well known is the fact that the Gloucester Diocesan Registrar, Christopher Peak, acted as a personal solicitor to Ball when the case first came into public view in 1992.   In short, Peak agreed to negotiate with the police and the legal authorities in the task of mitigating the crimes of Ball.  In this he seems to have enjoyed a measure of success, as Ball, despite his Caution, went on to enjoy many more years of retirement ministry.  Somehow, Peak failed to recognise that it was totally inappropriate for him, as a chief diocesan legal officer, to act at the same time on behalf of his bishop under criminal investigation.  In non-legal jargon, can it ever be right to represent the interests of the diocese and an accused bishop simultaneously?  Is this not a case of a lawyer tolerating a clear conflict of interest?

The twenty-year gap that I have referred to above represents the period (1992- 2012) where Peak, the chief legal officer of a diocese, having legal responsibilities for promoting the welfare of that body, had chosen to identify with one party in a criminal case. One does not criticise Peak for taking on the role of a defence solicitor, thus presenting the best possible case for an accused party.  Peak was entitled to defend Ball, but he was not entitled to have the role of representing the interests of the diocese as its Registrar at the same time.  This conflict of interest should have been obvious to Peak as its head legal official.  It should also have been obvious to others working in a legal capacity around him.  For twenty years this situation of obvious conflict of interest was tolerated without any awareness of dissonance. Because Peak would not have been able to represent the diocese ‘without fear or favour’ in a legal case involving the former bishop and his diocese, he was compromising his ability to protect the diocese.  No doubt, there were those within the church legal system nationally, who might have spotted something wrong with the situation.  Somehow we suspect that the power of vested interests were wanting to keep a firm lid on any examination of what had gone wrong.  In the end, it was not church lawyers that blew the whistle of what had been going on; it was the work of some lawyers following the case from the National Secular Society.  It was they who, thirty years after the event, obtained this current ruling from the Solicitors Regulatory Authority.  This deemed Peak’s behaviour as worthy of official censure and sanction.

Why is this story important?   It is important for at least two reasons.  The first is that legal offences by those working for the church, when they occur, have been, historically speaking, rarely challenged.  The conflict of interest involved in having the Diocesan Registrar acting as a personal solicitor for the bishop should have been fairly obvious to anyone working in a legal capacity in Gloucester at the time.  One suspects that deference to Peak by lawyers and church dignitaries alike supressed any such challenge.  As Registrar and probably the most highly paid servant of the diocese, it was probably not difficult to overawe any potential opposition to his legal activity as personal solicitor in defending Ball.  Initially, at any rate, the diocesan clergy unanimously supported Ball and it was only later that the possibility of guilt gradually dawned on them.  The second factor is linked to the high financial rewards payable to lawyers who work for the Church. Just as Peak used his skill and power to successfully manage things legally for Ball, so we have witnessed the raw power of well-paid lawyers working openly to intimidate their victims in the case of the Christ Church/Percy case. We have discussed in earlier blogs the way that conflicts of interest were clearly apparent in that long-running saga. At Gloucester, the power of a Registrar acting as a defence lawyer must have been considerable.  We know from the Charity Commission statement that the fees charged by the church lawyers working for Christ Church and Diocese of Oxford were massive and one suspects that considerable sums of charitable money were also spent defending Ball.  We should always be able to expect the highest standards of ethical behaviour from lawyers working for the church.   Somehow the events of recent years when specialist church lawyers have been involved have meant that our confidence in the church’s legal system is not as secure as we would like it to be.

The Peak affair is something that could easily be buried under the ecclesiastical legal carpet.  It is however, I believe, saying something challenging to a future generation of church lawyers.  After failures and evidence of legal malfeasance over recent years, the wider Church will always be watching your behaviour with greater scrutiny.    In return for the millions we spend, and have spent, on legal services, we expect one thing above all.  We expect the very highest standards of morality and ethics. These are already laid down by the legal profession itself as it seeks to serve the public in a variety of contexts. Breaches of trust, conflicts of interest, protecting reputations and institutional bullying should never be found coming among church legal officers.  Also, protecting such behaviour, when practised by church dignitaries, is not part of your job.  We need the service of good lawyers to help the Church of England in its work, but we need to be able to assume that you fully share our highest ethical values, even if not necessarily our beliefs.  These values indeed already belong to your ethical and professional training.  They include respect for all, justice, equality under the law and high levels of personal integrity.  Recent failures by church lawyers in preserving such values have put many of us in a state of high alert.  We want to see that the church legal system is being used to promote the cause of justice and goodness and not a means to bolster reputation management and indulge in unjust power games which damage so many.

Having struggled through the New Year season with Covid, I make no apologies for delays in writing a few words for my readers.  For me and my wife, the virus has manifested itself as a streaming cold, a hacking cough and a high temperature and I realise that I have had little energy for writing over the past couple of weeks.  What I offer here is shorter than usual, but I trust my readers will be understanding as I try to get back to normal.

The word that sums up this season is simply the word ‘new’. I realised as I was thinking about this word that it is not one describing an objective reality. Something may be new to one person but not to another. The individual who has not yet seen an object or had a particular life experience is entitled to describe them as new on the first occasion when they are encountered.  While there are some things that are universally new to everyone, most ‘new’ experiences are only special to the individuals concerned.  This quality of newness, such as one marking an age milestone, is nevertheless very important to those involved.  The newness of marriage, parenthood, adulthood is something we commemorate and often share with others.  We recognise how important these new milestone events are in people’s lives.  By our joining in such celebrations, we help to emphasise how delighted we are to share an experience of newness in another person’s life.

Newness is not just about marking and celebrating these life milestones, whether those of other people or our own.  It also describes about a quality of living that sees the way that everything around us is constantly in a state of flux and change.  The world of nature allows us to live in a world of beauty and growth where we see constant change.  It is perhaps much easier not to notice what is is going on around us, how, for example, each day in the year has its own special quality.  The light of the sun in winter is of a different quality to that of summer.  Each season also has its own glory.  The changes and constant newness all around us are a constant source of delight and joy.  The one thing that is required to enter this world of delight is our readiness to pay attention.   It takes effort to notice the new.  Humankind has a regrettable preference for what is predictable and repeatable.  We thus find it easier to shut out anything not needed for the immediate task in hand.

The capacity to embrace newness in the world of nature by people is an attractive quality.  It makes us want to try harder to cultivate this appreciation or sense of wonder in ourselves as a way of honouring God as the creator.  There is a wonderful passage in Psalm 8 when the psalmist speaks of the ‘work of thy (God’s) fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast ordained’.  If appreciating God’s beauty is to become an honoured part of our spiritual make-up, then we should probably take more trouble over it.  We would like to think that our recognition of the newness of everything around us, is indeed part of our Christian faith.  This may be the case, but it cannot be allowed to stand on its own.   To serve God merely by recognising his beauty in nature would be an in incomplete, even lopsided, form of faith. 

There is one further way that we are called to engage with newness.  Christianity sometimes involves deliberate activity.  We may see something that ought to be done and we determine in our minds to take the necessary actions to bring it to pass.  Knowing that the people around us have similar needs to our own allows us to make an effort to serve those needs when we can.  Every decision to speak a word of encouragement or support to another person takes courage on our part.  When we do it, it is a deliberate action and it is new in the sense that it has never happened before.  Our potential actions towards other people all have the possibility for good.   In this potentiality there is enormous hope for change, newness and even transformation.  Perhaps we make less effort for the people around us because we have started to get too used to them and take them for granted. Just as the view from our own front window becomes so familiar that we stop noticing it and take it for granted, so we so easily do the same with people.  To say that other people, even those closest to us, have so much more to be engaged with, is probably an understatement.  As with the seasons, the growth in nature and the beauty of light interacting with plants and animals, so the people around us, the ones we take for granted, have so much to appreciate about them.  It does, however, require some kind of deliberate attention or application to reveal what we should want to find in that that over-familiar, maybe even stale, relationships.  But if we believe that everything is capable of being made new, then we should give our full attention to areas of staleness in our personal lives.  To see what is new in everything and everyone around us is perhaps a truly Christian resolution for the New Year.

In Revelation 21, in a passage often read at funerals, the one seated on the Throne says, ‘Behold I make all things new’.  Exactly what is being made new in this passage needs discussion and interpretation and there is room for different opinions on this. Nevertheless the ideal of newness being a divine gift to replace brokenness, death and loss has a powerful resonance. In whatever situation we find ourselves in we are always in the need of newness.  The interesting thing is that such newness is always available if we truly look for it.  It is available in the world of beauty and nature, and this is a gift for all, regardless of any religious background.  But newness is also promised in our relationships.  As Christians we are expected to explore the possibility of new relationships.  Here we find the discourse of reconciliation, forgiveness and restoration.   These are words about newness that very much belong to the Christian narrative.  There is a great deal of hope to be found here.

The idea of New Year has a powerful resonance whether we are talking about a Christian audience or an ordinary secular one.  Both can respond to that idea that newness involves hope and possibilities for the future.  Christians have their own account about the content of their hope, but every human being can be drawn into a narrative of good things that are possible if we are prepared to make the adjustment to listen more carefully and pay attention to what is around us.   Newness in the world, in other people and breaking out of staleness and routine is part of the way that the world becomes changed.  When we see a changed world both in the world of nature or in relationships, things start to shift.  We become part of and begin to create a new and better world.   Somehow, we have begun to put into practice our participation in the changing of the world that God is still creating, the world where all things are made new.

by David Brown

As Churchgoers, can we miss the point about faith?  And can we misunderstand how prayer fits in?  Jesus was sometimes quite strong about such hazards.  We read in Matt 6.1,2 “Beware of practising your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.”  It seems we must understand at a deep level what righteousness means, and how we should then live?  For today’s culture makes success seem rather important:  success in our education maybe, success in our work, and achievements in Christian work or in raising our family?

Jesus’s own lifestyle is surely a good place to start. For He demonstrated a vivid lifestyle from heaven; as a peasant carpenter, born without status, power or privilege, contrasting strongly with lifestyles seen today in eminent people.

Yet here’s a problem, for His life, viewed this way, was a total failure. Whilst travelling around, attracting new followers, a time came when ‘many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.’ (John 6.66).  His ministry was then decisively wrecked by evil people who ‘stitched him up’ to die a public and cruel criminal’s death.  His disciples (apart from Judas Iscariot) became ‘apostles’ to continue his work.  The evidence shows that the religious leaders of his day had become deeply corrupt.  As well as murdering Jesus, this religious ‘establishment’ used continuing violence, trying to silence these Christian men and women.  Jesus’s own brother James was thrown down from a high tower, and none of the rest of them died in their own beds. A technique seemingly followed by Putin today.

A theme emerges, often unnoticed, that God chooses to deal through failure rather more than success, as the world sees it.

I must admit to being rather slow to understand and accept such important truths about the Christian life.  And slow to see that the Christian faith is not primarily a matter of morality and the effort needed to achieve it.  Morality may be a consequence of following Jesus, but it shouldn’t be an aim.  When Jesus was asked by a lawyer what he had to do to inherit eternal life, he answered “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbour as yourself.”  (Luke 10:27-28). Whilst given a hugely demanding answer, the lawyer surprisingly picked up on the neighbour point rather than the larger point Jesus was making.

Then, there’s the whole subject of prayer.  I have too readily seen it as a way of bringing my own ideas to fruition—rather like using prayer as a religious ‘slot machine’.  God simply doesn’t depend on his followers to try to exercise a sort of control in this way. In his humility, Jesus showed a completely different pattern, saying: ‘I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.’ (John 6:38).  So, our top priority is to listen out for his voice to first discover what He wants of us.

There was a time in my memory when clergy were allowed to work without the constraints of safeguarding rules and health and safety awareness.  It was not, by any means, a golden era.  Two episodes still haunt me from my curacy days in the 1970s, when I ended up in the casualty department of a hospital with an injured child. In neither case was I, the organiser of the outing, held responsible as each were deemed pure accidents. I suspect that today’s risk sensitive culture might want to take a different view. The most important fact abut these episodes is that in neither case was the damage sustained by the child serious. The main thing I note here is that attitudes to risk and safety in church and elsewhere were not such a high priority in my early days of ministry.

But, in recalling these days of risk innocence, as I can call them, I have to confess that things did not always work out so well.  One particular episode involved my then Vicar taking a gamble over the integrity of a troubled young man whom he took in as a lodger at the Vicarage in my parish.  The young man was then, in 1973, about 29 and, from the details I picked up, he had had a troubled past.  This included a chaotic home life as a child and later episodes of homelessness.  Charlie, as I shall call him, did however have a strong outgoing personality and soon ingratiated himself with the congregation.  He had no full-time job but busied himself around the church plant and acted as an informal caretaker. Charlie made it his business to get on with me.  Not only were we fellow lodgers at the Vicarage, but he wanted to help at the youth club which met on a Sunday night in the church hall, and which was under my charge.  All went well for many months, and it was helpful to have another adult to help supervise the games and activities that I laid on for the young people.  There was nevertheless something not quite right in his behaviour which I could not name.  I was careful never to allow him to be alone with the young people, especially the girls.  Suddenly, everything fell apart for Charlie in the course of a single evening.  He had what appeared to be a psychotic episode and began to shout and to molest some of the girls in front of everyone.  Fortunately, the Vicar was able to come and take control of what was a very difficult situation. Charlie left the following day and I never heard from him again.  There was, incidentally, no talk of referring him on to a specialist mental health professional.

What are my thoughts on this difficult situation after a gap of almost fifty years?  From a safeguarding and health and safety perspective, Charlie was, and probably always had been, high risk.  But there was something else going in the situation which, I believe, links it to recent events in the Diocese of London.  The Vicar’s acceptance of Charlie into his confidence and home seemed to be telling us something about the Vicar’s own needs.  The area of London where we found ourselves was quite cosmopolitan and the Vicar was an ambitious Cambridge graduate.  From my perspective, there seemed always to be a tension between his social background and the mainly working-class status of his parishioners. Indeed, he appeared not to like many of them and some confided to me that this feeling was mutual. Possibly the act of investing considerable trust in Charlie was a way for the Vicar to relieve his feelings of dissonance and alienation.  Charlie was his ‘tame’ working class friend and through him he was attempting to show himself as a contemporary modern man for whom class was of no importance. The very keenness to befriend Charlie demonstrated, paradoxically, that for him class mattered a great deal.   Something similar was happening among those who were lionising Jimmy Savile during the same period.  Savile knew how to work an over-familiar cloying charm on his establishment victims.  These were the ones who gave him his opportunities for abuse.  Charlie and Savile were both adepts at allowing the privileged to feel socially sophisticated because of the faux friendships they offered to a member of another class. In Charlie’s case the mesmerising came to an end before the damage had been allowed to become too serious.

In retrospect, the act of trusting Charlie, whatever the reason, had been highly dangerous.  To be fair to my Vicar, the potentially disastrous situation was partly created by the risk innocence I have referred to.  The church structures of the time also did little to help.  There was no system of record checks, independent advice or any kind of risk assessment process.  Clergy, like my Vicar, were left to struggle by themselves with whatever wisdom and common-sense they possessed.   Sometimes this was insufficient, and their naivety and inexperience could lead them to places of extreme danger.  Also, there was the fact that clergy desperately want to do the right Christian thing and offer forgiveness to those who sought it.  The penitent sinner is hard to resist especially if he/she is one who has struggled through a lifetime of setbacks in the relationships they have made. Charlie was, by all appearances, one of these converted sinners.  Currently, clergy are less likely to follow their gut instincts but rather seek advice from a professional.  The modern profession of safeguarding offers the church of today a way to help a clergyperson find a way through some of the moral dilemmas facing them. The new world we have created for ourselves in the Church is a safety-first world.  Safety and a desire for protection from disasters and mistakes replace a reliance on instinct and gut feeling which ruled in the past. 

The current Martin Sargeant saga seems to be, though on a completely different scale, another Charlie story.  I am assuming that most of my readers will be familiar with the broad outlines of the way that Sargeant, a man with a prison record, stole £5 million from the Diocese of London after being put in charge of some of its funds. There are still a number of anomalies in the account about exactly what went on and to whom precisely he was answerable. Nevertheless, in this story, there are some striking parallels with the story of Charlie.  Sargent’s tale is another account of an apparently repentant sinner who arrives at a church and becomes trusted because he is useful.  The skills Sargeant possessed proved to be ones that are not commonly found among church people – financial wizardry and property development.  Such a man becomes looked up to by many people because of these skills.  Eventually he acquires real power, while the original dark background of his thefts and imprisonment becomes forgotten or supressed.  In retrospect we can ask why were there no checks and auditing?  Clearly, particularly by the standards of today, these administrative failings were massive.  But, by the standards of what was common practice among clergy trained forty or fifty years ago, i.e. the Bishop and the senior diocesan staff who worked with Sargeant, the situation is perhaps a little more understandable.  Having known Richard Chartres, the former Bishop of London, a little in the early years of his ministry, I recognise the clerical omnicompetence that he seemed to exhibit from the very start.  Most of the time, Chartres seems to have able to use his gifts of apparently reliable judgment to good effect.  Many in the Church and beyond were also impressed by his quick intellect and impressive gift for public speaking.  This allowed him to reach the very pinnacle of the CoE’s hierarchy.   But, in the process of appointing or, at any rate, acquiescing in the appointment of Sargeant, and then failing to oversee his actual work in the diocese, Chartres is now seen to have been trapped by the ubiquitous risk innocence I spoke about above. This, I suggest, was shared by many of his contemporaries among the clergy. What at the time may have seemed to be an inspired appointment turned out to be a major calamity.  This is one that will for ever taint his legacy.  In a nutshell, the Bishop apparently believed that his assessment of Sargeant was sound, and that he could allow the normal checks and balances of regular employment practice to be bypassed. It was a high-risk decision by the Bishop and one that has backfired badly.

There is, I believe, the further aspect in the Sargeant story which is suggestive of a further link to my Vicar’s relationship with Charlie.  I was, obviously, not close to the Chartres/Sargeant relationship but this attempt to understand its dynamic seems a reasonable one and is based on the publicly available information. The first fact to be considered is that Sargeant, from the descriptions of him as a ‘fixer’, came, like Charlie, from fairly humble social origins.  Was Sargeant also fulfilling a similar role for Bishop Chartres as Charlie had appeared to provide for my Vicar?  Was Chartres benefitting from being able to show an apparent high level of social kudos and sophistication by having, apparently in an atmosphere of relaxed informality, a working-class man like Sargeant working for him? Working closely with Sargeant would have helped Chartres to claim that he was a true man of the people, at the same time as he was mixing with royalty and other well-connected folk in society. At some point, one can imagine a firm loyalty, even personal friendship, developing between the two men, one which could ignore any social dissonance.  Any criticisms about Sargeant that Chartres might have picked up from his staff could be sat on firmly as suggesting, on the part of the complainant, some social prejudice. I find it hard to believe that Sargeant never attracted any criticism in the nine or so years he worked as Head of Operations in the diocese.  One possible explanation for this is that he was always protected by the Bishop on each occasion. My reading of the overall situation is that Chartres did indeed invest in Sargent an enormous amount of his personal trust and loyalty.  The way that Sargeant survived in his post for so long can perhaps be attributed to the near veneration and personal loyalty that Chartres seems to have felt for his right-hand man.  Was this depth of loyalty also felt by other senior staff in the London Diocese or was it the protection of the Bishop alone that kept him in post and allowed him so much power?  That discussion is going on currently within the diocese and I imagine we have not heard the last of the story.

This blog post has turned to be about one major issue that afflicted the Church in years gone by.  The culture of the Church in the past allowed the clergy a great deal of freedom (excessive?) to manage things exactly as they wished.  There was much scope for mistakes and too little support for all the variety of tasks the clergy had to undertake.  The expectations of clerical omnicompetence had some dire consequences.  The apparent failings and catastrophic losses in the Diocese of London are perhaps good examples of how this past independence culture still exerts a powerful influence today in some areas.  What the future should set down as correct behaviour for clergy remains to be seen.  Somewhere there has to be a balance between excess independence and a responsible deference to true expertise.

The idea that there is a single theologically orthodox view of the Christian God, commonly held by all Christians, is an unlikely claim. Confusing and even contradictory ideas about God exist inside our own heads and probably those of most other people.  Even if we are able fully to identify with the credal formulae of the Church, there exist in many of us less orthodox ideas that inhabit us or pay us a visit from time to time. Many of us have come to realise that our beliefs about the central tenet of the Christian faith are a work in progress.  Part of the problem is, I believe, what we were taught about God as very young children.  Teaching children about God is of course commendable and what we expect of Christian parents. But, in the mind of a 2/3-year-old, there is enormous scope for confusion over the identity of the Tooth Fairy, Father Christmas and God.  Most of our early ideas about God were probably focussed on the reassuring part of faith – the God who cares and prepares a place in heaven for us when we die.  Then at later stage, the child is possibly introduced to notions of hell and punishment.  The memories of childhood teaching about God, with all the potential for muddle that they engender, means that few people arrive at adulthood with clearly worked-out ideas on the subject.  The mature Christian may have to do quite a bit of unlearning as well as learning to arrive a place that is wholesome and helpful for the pilgrimage of the Christian journey. However hard we unlearn, elements of muddled thinking about God are almost inevitably lodged in our brains.

One of the problems I remember having, when I first encountered the Bible around the age of seven, was the different notions about God to be found in the Old Testament. There was the God who walked in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day, calling out to Adam and Eve. Then there was the God who sent terrible plagues to terrify the Egyptians. Further, there was a God sitting in heaven surrounded by celestial beings in Isaiah 6. To a small but growing child trying to wrestle with and find a workable notion of God, these wildly different pictures of what he was like were confusing. It is not surprising that Christians can grow up with some very strange beliefs. Some children, and I count myself as one of these, were left to wallow in these difficulties and contradictions in the biblical record. In many ways I was fortunate that no one tried to iron out all these problems by suggesting that such issues could be sorted out by applying a dogmatic formula.   The very untidiness of my understanding allowed me to be receptive to fresh ideas as a young adult.  These completely changed my perceptions.

 What were the ideas about God that released me so decisively from my childhood semi-fundamentalism?   At the age of 19, I was introduced to the idea of mystical vision.  Suddenly all the biblical physical descriptions of the deity ceased to be problematic.  All the writers, whether biblical or within the mystical traditions, had been struggling with the same problem.  They had to work with limitations of human language, while at the same time knowing that this was an imperfect tool.  To put it another way, all these writers were using language to evoke spiritual reality rather describe it.  The quasi-physical language about the nature of God was not to be understood as the final word or clung to as infallible teaching.  It came as a relief to be able to hear and appreciate the mystics’ teaching that the experience of God is something that inevitably goes beyond language.  Language, even biblical language, can only take us so far in the exploration of the divine.  The place of mystery, the place of unknowing was the portal into a new way of encountering God.  It dawned on me that this unknown God would provide guidance and support for the life-long journey of spiritual discovery.  This journey of discovery is one which continues to this day.

My graduate studies exposed me to the thought and language of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even before that stage I had become familiar with one particular word used by Orthodox theologians.  This word allowed me to sense a freedom from some constraining Western ideas about the doctrine of God. The word is apothatic. It is a word which links Christian ideas about the nature of God to the teachings of a writer called Pseudo-Dionysius and through him to other Greek theologians of the first centuries.  He was an anonymous Greek theologian who was writing in the fifth century A.D. The basic idea of Dionysius was that God is beyond all human description and even words. We cannot add anything to our knowledge of God by using words of description; all we can do is to say what God is not. It may seem strange to cease to rely on words in talking about God but this tradition does find many echoes in Western theology from the mediaeval period onwards.  Apothatic theology is a healthy counterbalance to what appear to be, in the West, attempts to control what Christians think about God by what might be, sometimes, thought of as a coercive use of language.  No language or words should ever be allowed to exhaust the mystery of the divine being.

All the mystical writers, East and West, seem to have grasped the notion that God cannot be defined, or his nature described in words. In one way this inability to talk about God using words is a potential source of frustration. We are used to words being used extensively in sermons and expository preaching over the centuries. The thought that such words may be merely a pale reflection of the divine reality may appear to be making light of the work of people who have given years of effort to the study of doctrine.  But, on the other hand, apothatic theology is a gateway into a freedom and creativity. Theology is allowed to become, not a quasi-science but something more resembling poetry, an endless travelling into a deeper and deeper reality. Of course words, and especially biblical words, will continue to be used in our pulpits and in Christian teaching. But these words will be used against the background of a keen realisation of the restrictions involved in such forms of human expression.  Because God is, in some sense, beyond knowledge and human concepts, the words that are used to talk about him will always be offered with a certain humility and provisionality.

For those who write about the vision of God, there has to be a considerable reticence.  One way of conveying that unknowability found in the encounter with God is to speak of a great and all-embracing silence. This word silence is used here, not to describe the absence of sound, but more to convey the absence of human symbols and concepts. The biblical proclamation of John 1 is that out of the silence came a communication – that which is described as the Word. God speaks to us in Jesus. The eternal indescribable and unknowable God comes into a world to reveal himself in a human life. It is this extraordinary, even unexpected mystery that we celebrate at Christmas. In all the pictures and symbols which we are given at this time – light, stars and angelic hosts- there is expressed an encounter with somebody or something that goes beyond anything we can put into words. The Christmas message should help to draw us out from our normal partial understandings of God, steeped in words and concepts, to contemplate something which is so wonderful and so infinite that we recognise that we can never really get close to it.

My brief excursion into a tradition for understanding the divine nature in a different way, is a reminder to me and perhaps to my reader that it is important to understand how much about God is unknown and unknowable. When we refuse to surrender to tidy theological definitions found in the systematic textbooks, we are better able to grasp the profound mystery even in the word God.  If God ever ceases to be beyond knowledge he becomes, as the Old Testament would recognise, something like a graven image. When the early Israelites were grappling with their own battles against such false gods and the temptations of idolatry, they were helping us with our own contemporary struggles to make sense of the language connected with the divine.  I much prefer to believe in a God that defies my attempts and capacity to imagine.  I certainly do not want a God who can ever be used as a tool of coercion or fear.  That is not the God I can believe in. The God I do believe in is one who reveals himself but does not allow us ever to claim to understand or fully fathom his nature.  He will always be a God beyond knowledge.

Open Letter to Mr. Orlando Fraser KC, Chair, Charity Commission: 12^th December 2022

Editor’s Comment  This is a letter to the Charity Commission expressing something of the sense of deep frustration felt by many concerned for the work of safeguarding in the Church of England.  As a way of helping the circulation of this important document, Surviving Church is pleased to carry this letter for the information of readers of this blog.  The letter is forthright in its tone, and this reflects the sense of powerlessness and a keen sense of the lack of progress that has been made in this area over several years.  Many of the readers of this blog will share the sentiments and expression of strong feeling on the subject.  We await developments and trust that both the Charity Commission and those criticised will listen carefully to the criticisms and what is being addressed in this important letter.

Dear Sir, 

We write to the Charity Commission as a group of concerned General Synod members (past and present), clergy, laity, survivors and victims of church abuse, their advocates, as well as complainants and respondents who have been maltreated and harmed by Church of England’s safeguarding processes (including IICSA core participants). We are placing on record our common experience of the National Safeguarding Team, Independent Safeguarding Board, National Safeguarding Panel, Dioceses, Lead Bishops for Safeguarding, and those trustees presiding over this (i.e., the Archbishops’ Council). 

We are all witnesses to a highly dysfunctional church culture – one lacking in care, wisdom and responsibility – uniformly poor in responses to allegations of abuse, and subsequent complaints about corrupted, cruel and inhumane processes. These have led to despair, suicides, travesties of justice, all perpetrating much longer term pastoral and personal damage on a colossal scale. Yet nobody in the Church of England takes any responsibility for this. We have no functional leadership in safeguarding. 

We can have no further trust or confidence in these bodies, nor the individuals working within them. Nor do we harbour any hope that this will ever change. Current safeguarding processes, bodies, panels, and their personnel are incompetent, ineffective and unfit for purpose. The leadership is insincere and inaccurate in its claims that progress is being made. Conflicts of interest run rife throughout the handling of complaints.  Victims of abuse and poor process have no advocacy, and no redress. Mismanagement and misconduct are not addressed. ‘Core Groups’ lack clarity, consistency and basic competency. There are negligible signs of genuine concern for any victims. 

We judge that a General Synod vote of no confidence in the work of safeguarding in the Church of England is already long overdue. However, the Church of England as whole has demonstrated that it does not possess the will, wisdom, capability and resources to improve this work. This culpable failure and neglect stems from the persistent failure of the trustees for the Archbishops’ Council to exercise leadership and oversight. 

We believe the Church of England’s safeguarding practices must now be subjected to a formal Charity Commission investigation (i.e., a fully independent review under your auspices). This is because most recent IICSA recommendations have been treated with scant regard by the trustees, or simply evaded.  The only way forward in church safeguarding is fully independent regulation, oversight and quality control – without which there will never be transparency, fairness, accountability or proper process.

We must regrettably accept that trustees of the Archbishops’ Council have led us nowhere. We can have no more failures, fudging or fawning self-flattery. If there is to be any hope it is time to face reality. The Church of England must become subject to public standards of truth and justice. We therefore urge the Charity

Commission, using statutory powers, to order a fully independent review into these concerns. 

Yours sincerely, MARTIN SEWELL, General Synod (Lay Member, Rochester

For complete list of signatories, please consult the Thinking Anglicans website. https://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Open-Letter-to-Charity-Commission-FINAL.pdf

PRESS RELEASE ABOUT CC LETTER

News Release
Wednesday 14 December 2022
Church of England leaders and others ask the Charity Commission to intervene in the
church’s safeguarding
Signatories to an open letter say they have no confidence in current structures

51 senior leaders in the Church of England have written to the Charity Commission asking it
to investigate the church’s safeguarding practices. The signatories come from all parts of the
Church of England, including both lay and ordained members, and some who are elected
members of the church’s General Synod. They include some who have been victims of
church-based abuse, some who have been accused or complained of such abuse. They cover
the spectrum of members including evangelical, catholic, and broad church members.
Lawyers who represented church victims at the IICSA inquiry have also signed the letter.
In the letter, the signatories express serious concerns about the safeguarding policies and
practices being operated by the Church of England. The letter complains of “a highly
dysfunctional church culture – one lacking in care, wisdom and responsibility – uniformly
poor in responses to allegations of abuse”. The writers say that they have “no functional
leadership in safeguarding.”

In January 2019 Archbishop Justin Welby appeared to endorse these grievances, when he
told The Spectator “We have not yet found the proper way of dealing properly with
complainants and taking them seriously, listening to them, not telling them to shut up and
go away, which is what we did for decades. Which was evil. It’s more than just a wrong
thing: it’s a deeply evil act.” Four years later, the signatories complain that there has been
no change. They say that claims by the bishops that the church’s safeguarding is on a path of
improvement are “insincere and inaccurate.”

In November 2021, in advance of the report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual
Abuse (IICSA) the Church of England established an Independent Safeguarding Board (ISB).
But questions have been asked about the Board’s independence, resources, capacity and
expertise. The three part-time members of the ISB, were appointed and employed by the
church, raising questions about its independence. Its chair, the former Children’s
Commissioner Maggie Atkinson, has been “stood aside” from duties since the Summer
whilst multiple allegations of data breaches are investigated by the Office of the Information
Commissioner. A recent meeting called by the ISB to listen to the concerns of survivors was
so poorly advertised that it attracted no registrations or attendees, and was duly cancelled.
Mr Martin Sewell, a retired solicitor and senior member of the Church of England General
Synod, said “Trying to find where the buck stops in the Church of England has proved
impossible, so this powerful group of informed individuals have joined together to call for
the Charity Commission to hold the members of Archbishops’ Council to account for the
discharge of their trustee duties in this essential matter.”

The signatories to the letter encourage the General Synod to pass a motion of no confidence
in the church’s safeguarding arrangements at its February session. They also ask the Charity
Commission to conduct its own independent review into the Archbishop’s Council, which is
responsible for the church’s National Safeguarding Team. The Archbishop’s Council, in
common with every parish church and diocese in England, is a registered charity.
ENDS
For further information please contact
Andrew Graystone
andrew.graystone1@btinternet.com
07772 71009

Some forty years ago, at a time when I was studying the topic of Christian healing, a group of doctors came together to form the British Holistic Medical Association (BHMA).  Some of the things that these doctors were saying caught my attention, not least because they made a space for a spiritual dimension in their understanding of the healing process.  It is useful to recall some of the principles of holistic medicine as presented in 1984.  They have a certain resonance today as we find that there is a current concern for another, not dissimilar, holistic impulse.  Today doctors and members of the caring professions are being urged to become ‘trauma informed’.  In summary they are, like the doctors of the 80s, being encouraged to see illness in the human body or mind, not as the breakdown of a faulty machine, but as failures in the wider social or psychological environment to which the individual is exposed. These mental or physical illnesses are to be looked at as possibly signalling evidence of past trauma.  If such is found, it will necessitate a somewhat different approach in respect of the treatment offered as well as the ongoing care of the patient.  It will always be necessary to be alert and sensitive to the implications of this wider context of illness and distress and take steps to use this awareness to better serve the needs of those seeking help. 

The first edition of the 1984 BHMA journal set out the principles of holism as they apply to medicine. Some of these are directly relevant to the topic of trauma which we are considering in this piece. I want to list some of the key ideas of holistic medicine.  In these two parallel but related sets of ideas, the holistic and the trauma informed approaches, doctors and professional carers of all kinds are being invited to extend their horizons to incorporate fresh and broader insights about the nature of illness.  In the 80s, classical medical practice was being taken to task by holistic practitioners for seeing illness in purely material terms and failing to understand the social and spiritual aspects of dis-ease. In a similar way trauma informed care urges those looking after people who may have been affected by trauma, to be alert to all the ways that a life-changing event may have affected a patient. To be trauma informed is thus to be able to practise your caring skills from the background of a particular manifestation of holistic thinking – one that understands the wide-ranging effect of trauma on people.   

The first principles of the original 1984 statement about the then new approach in applying holism to medicine, are those that point out the error involved in breaking up the human personality into fragmented parts.  This principle has also to be strongly affirmed as we seek to attend to the needs of people who have encountered an abusive or traumatising event.  Trauma is a holistic event in the sense that it has the capacity to damage the personality at more than one level.  To pretend or assume that people can easily walk away unscathed from catastrophic episodes which they have experienced, is a betrayal of care and imagination of enormous gravity.

This point is made well in the first statement made by the 1984 holistic doctors.  Healing and harm both inevitably operate at more than one level.

The human organism is a multi-dimensional being, possessing body mind and spirit, all inextricably connected, each part affecting the whole and the whole being greater than the sum of the parts.

Damage to relationships is also a matter of great importance.  The betrayal of human trust that occurs in many traumatic events needs to be responded to with considerable care

There is an interconnectedness between human beings and their environment which includes other human beings. This interconnectedness acts as a force on the functioning of the individual isolated human being.

Further holistic medicine principles focus on the one mediating wholeness.  A particular emphasis is made that the ‘healer’ should not only have healing skill but also be an individual practising self-insight.  The reference to alternative medical treatments like acupuncture may not appeal to many medically trained people today, but this was a common feature at the time.

One of the primary tasks of someone entrusted to heal, be he Dr, priest or acupuncturist, is to encourage the self innate capacity for healing of the individual industries.

To enable him to accomplish his task effectively, the healer needs to be aware of his own multidimensional levels of existence and have some expertise and ability in achieving a state of balance and state of harmony within himself – ‘Physician heal thyself’.

Clearly, the 1980s were not embarrassed by the use of the ‘he’ pronoun when talking about a healing practitioner. But the important point we take away from these insights is the gentle urging that doctors and other medical carers should break away from any narrow frames of reference.  For the 1980s conventionally trained doctor (arguably still true today), the temptation was to treat patients as living machines which operated according to mechanical laws.  Social and spiritual issues were thought to be outside the disease process.  In the 2020s, with the advent of trauma informed thinking, there is a movement to ensure that there should be a better understanding of the effects of trauma on those forced to endure the burden of experiencing various forms of distress.   The question that doctors and carers need to ask of their clients is not ‘how are you?’ but ‘what has happened to you?’ The asking of this question articulates the expectation that uncovering trauma of some kind is likely to be a regular part of helping someone who comes for help with some form of mental or physical affliction.

What exactly are we talking about in using this expression? Trauma informed approaches are not just applicable to the practice of medicine. They are relevant in all places where there are people who have experienced serious ill-usage at the hands of others during their lives. That perhaps applies to most of the population. But we need in our review of this new strand of holistic caring, some definition of the word trauma. One definition given by the Substance Abuse and Mental-Health Services in 2014, says this: ‘Individual trauma results from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life-threatening and that has lasting adverse effects of the individual’s functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional, or spiritual well-being’. This definition will cover many of our survivor population.  The trauma for them is, as we have attested many times, not just as the result of the original harmful event but is aggravated on many occasions by the sloppy and inadequate care received later.

Providing a caring and an appropriate response to a person who has experienced trauma is extremely important and requires sensitivity and skill.  The trauma informed literature suggests a number of principles or forms of help that are needed to provide effective help for trauma victims. Many of us reading this will be thinking about church survivors and the variety of needs they have.  But, whatever the context of the trauma, the same principles will apply when supporting anyone who has been through such an experience which resembles that described in the definition in the previous paragraph.

The first principle is the importance of giving anyone who has been through traumatic experience a place of safety. The place of safety may be found in a carefully prepared physical space backed up by a personal trusted relationship.  Such elements will provide a supportive and nurturing environment for a survivor – a place of physical, emotional and psychological safety. The Church seems to be remarkably inept in this area.  We hear stories about victim/survivors having to go to the home of a bishop or even return to the place where they experienced the original trauma. From a trauma informed approach, such inattention to a survivor’s need to feel safe is insensitive and unacceptable. The task of providing such emotional and psychological safety does require considerable imagination and insight, something that the safeguarding church experts often seem to lack.

A further example of trauma-informed practice is that a survivor needs to be helped to make choices and be given goals to aim for. The trauma may have removed a sense of agency and it is the task of trauma-informed support to help give back self-determination and power to the one who has suffered. As part of rebuilding a sense of self, the interaction with the helper will demand that latter has considerable skill and patience. If anyone is to help the trauma survivor, there needs to be a commitment to the long haul.  Such care and support is expensive both in terms of financial as well as institutional resources.

Trauma informed therapy may originally be indebted to the insights of medical practitioners working with holistic principles.  But, at another level, it represents a dedication to a culture of humane care.  In the Church it behoves all of us who encounter the survivors of bullying and mistreatment of various kinds to be alert to the likely trauma burdens they carry.  When we are able more easily to intuit their needs, we will first not fall into the trap of saying the wrong thing or offering inappropriate help and support.