by Paul Skirrow

Definition of bullying: The abuse and mistreatment of someone vulnerable by someone stronger, more powerful, etc. It is prone to or characterized by overbearing mistreatment and domination of others.

The clergy of the Church of England, if asked directly, would probably be able to identify instances of personal bullying by the hierarchy, either of themselves or of others. Most however, would accept that this is not too common. However, it would seem that the identifiable mechanisms for direct one on one bullying have been embedded as part of the structures and systems of the Church. In that way they do not need to be personalised in any hierarchical figure as they become the normal practice of the management of the institution. Also, while resenting this ever encroaching managerialism, we find it hard to resist it, and to identify it in a way which reveals it for what is it. The hierarchy are engaged in bullying even without their activity being identified as such by them or others. Finally, when clergy suffer from bullying in this embedded form, it is difficult to pinpoint and identify a practice which is diffuse and permeates a whole system, and it is the nature of such a system that it is far from easy or safe for an individual to make a stand when isolated.

Below are some examples of the way bullying has become embedded, and is, in fragmented and generalised ways, experienced by most clergy.

• The removal of freehold. This paved the way for creating weaker and less protected clergy, making them easier targets. Employment rights were undercut severely through this process. The checks and balances built into the system were removed and a poor substitute, from the point of view of the clergy, was introduced: Common Tenure.

• The Clergy Discipline Measure is a fine example of what happens when the protection of freehold renders clergy vulnerable. Its destructive weaknesses have been identified but whether the Church has the will or the way to redeem the situation remains to be seen. The practice of being suspended and cut off from support and the exercise of one’s vocation, is a definition of being guilty until being proved innocent. The process feels like being bullied by clergy who have had to go through it, and it hangs, like Cicero’s sword of Damocles, over the heads of all priests going about their parish duties.

• The constant demand for responses to questionnaires from the “centre”, over and above what used to be the usual documents, seem like a deliberate checking up process to make sure the clergy are doing what they should. This is demeaning.

• The proliferation of initiatives cascading from the “centre” remind clergy that they are not really doing all they could to fulfil their vocation, and their practice of ministry needs remodelling. Belittling the vulnerable, persistently reminding them of their inadequacies, is an act of bullying.

• The devising of Diocesan strategies and plans into which parishes are expected to fit has the same effect, and reminds clergy that their traditional and faithful activities are inadequate. There’s a comic/tragic exercise watching clergy persuade their PCCs to produce a mission statement that fits in with the latest alliterative straplines from the Diocese and its elaborately illustrated and verbose Mission Plan. Again, the message is to do it the Diocesan way, not the way of your parish and people. This undermines those in weaker positions.

• The constant money pressure through Parish Share could be described whimsically as stealing the parishes’ dinner money, which is an old, traditional and established form of bullying. That aside, clergy are often made to feel as failures when they can’t up the giving to fund the extra staff, initiatives, and programmes of the Dioceses.

• The pressure to put bums on pews reflects a contempt for low numbers. Two or three gathered together represents a failure by the clergy. The message of failing is persistent and insidious. (See: Attitudes to, and funding for, rural parish ministry – Church Times Letters 11^th February 2022.) Numerical growth is the key to “success” and the only indicator of “success”. There are instances of Church House seizing on apparent growth from the statistics and asking to learn how the church managed it. Demographic changes such as immigration from predominantly Anglican countries, or two or three Christian families moving in do not count as “techniques”. Neither do proper pastoral care, or good funeral practices.

• The emphasis on the demography of the church is a criticism about the failure of clergy to fill the pews with younger people. However, when has the dominant age group been under 30, and for how many decades has the church been singing the same song about bringing in young people, without effect? That history doesn’t matter when it comes to bullying today’s clergy. Ironically, those who “failed” in the past are now in a position to criticise those who “fail” in the same ways now. Younger people have other things to do – visiting family, caring for elderly relatives, or taking the only opportunity for leisure together. Make sure they know we are there if they need us.

• The pressure to “reinvent” liturgy, to make it more “relevant”, “attractive”, or even inane, undermines clergy who are competent in doing what they have been doing well for years. Parish priests know as a rule what feeds their people and sustains them in Christian hope, if they listen attentively. Yet it would seem, according to the deluge of ideas from the “centre”, that they don’t.

• Persistent pastoral reorganisation, or the threat of it, disturbs, threatens and worries clergy who have no way to resist, especially those without Freehold. It creates and sustains anxiety, increasing vulnerability and the desire to comply with the demands of the bullies. Some rural Parishes seem to be reorganised in their groups almost annually or every time someone locally moves on. One rural churchwarden told me recently, “I’m not sure what there is to reorganise. We are down to one service monthly usually taken by a Lay Reader. There are 12 churches and one half-time priest.” The pressure to take on more is hard to resist because refuse and “even that which you have will be taken away”. (A standard line of one Northern Archdeacon.)

• The constant widening and increasing of responsibilities takes away the focus of clergy on the essentials of ministry. The administration, the returns, the courses, meetings, the three line whips to attend episcopally organised events. The essential Calling is reduced to the side-lines.

• Appraisals and Reviews often insult clergy in their approach to questioning their work, competence, and faithfulness. Done in the name of support they have been experienced as quite the opposite.

• There are increasingly rigid frameworks of safeguarding, health and safety, etc. which constrict initiative, have resulted in injustices to victims and alleged perpetrators, and create fear of sensitive practices and pastoral action.

• The recently stated aim to have lay-led churches is saying to priests, “Your calling is outdated and not needed. It doesn’t work.“ It completely misses the point that the vocations of the laity are in their families, communities and workplaces. The church’s role is to serve them and think with them theologically about that task. They are not to be co-opted as free labour to sustain an institution for the sake of its hierarchy.

All the above, in effect, outlines institutionalised bullying. It suggests that we have developed management practices designed to manipulate a weakened clergy in order to force them to do what the hierarchy wants through the structures the hierarchy controls. It is the practice of the powerful dominating weaker and more vulnerable people.

What is to be done? Many clergy quite rightly sit lightly to the above where they can, dismissing it out of frustration. This is still possible for those who have managed to hold on to their freehold. For others I would argue that a quiet resistance is required. A collective stance which allows such bullying to pass by or wither in the in-box. Alongside that, listen to our people and reassert the fact that those we serve have a different view and we are necessarily heeding their needs. Treat intrusive questions in questionnaires and assessments with quiet dignity, while indicating their irrelevance to your situation; a simple “N/A” works well. Use appraisals creatively to rediscover the excitement and hope of your vocation rather than follow a hierarchical agenda.

For the hierarchy, stop undermining your clergy in the name of “Ministerial Support”. Have a moratorium on initiatives. Visit and affirm small churches without judging; just enjoy them. There are some wonderful clergy and people out there. Do more theology (or even some theology) on ministry, priesthood and the place of ordinary lay people in the world. Meet one to one with the clergy and listen, don’t try and “lead”. Reconsider the size and financial burden of the large bureaucracies now deemed essential to manage the church.

Much is spoken of bullying and the Church of England has policies and training programmes about how to deal with it. The church knows there is a problem and seeks to prevent it from becoming a greater problem at one level. That is good. However, essential though the prevention of direct one on one bullying is, we need to see how we have integrated bullying into the culture and management of the church over the past two or more decades. If the analysis above has some basis in fact then we need to rethink. We seek to serve God and God’s people. We will never manage that with systems that allow the motives and practices of the powerful to dominate the servants. That’s the way of the world and not the way of God and the Kingdom.

Paul Skirrow is a priest in retirement with experience spanning Urban and Industrial Mission, Parishes, a Retreat Centre, and international networking.

In recent days, my attention has been drawn once again to a 2020 letter http://survivingchurch.org/2020/08/12/letter-to-charity-commissioners-over-concerns-about-church-of-england-safeguarding/  sent to the Charity Commission (CC) by a list of signatories about failures in the Church of England’s safeguarding systems.  It clearly set out a number of ways that the Church’s legal and administrative protocols for dealing with such things as clergy discipline and safeguarding practice are failing, sometimes lamentably.  It became known as the Micah letter because it is a plea to follow the principles set out in Micah 6.8 to follow a path of justice and mercy and walk humbly with God. The letter is dated the 11 August 2020.  As far as I can determine, the letter has disappeared into a black hole of the in-tray of the CC.  I do not make this comment as implying that the Commission is necessarily at fault.  If they did fail to respond to our 70 signatories, I can believe that there may have been some valid practical reasons.  The letter was raising a complex series of issues about poor safeguarding practice in the Church of England.  It is difficult to know how Baroness Stowell, then chair of the CC, could have responded.   A full response might have required the temporary shutting down of the entire safeguarding machinery of the Church while the complaints were investigated.

The prompt to me to look once again at this powerful written critique of CofE protocols and practice with regard to safeguarding came from the anonymous author who is standing up for ‘Kenneth’.  Were it not for her, I too would have completely forgotten the existence of this valuable document.  She observed that the document has proved to be an inspiration and support to anyone wanting to make sense of the sometimes tortuous legal processes that the CofE has put in place for safeguarding.  For most of us the existence of several apparently overlapping structures connected with safeguarding is very confusing.  How many really understand how the National Safeguarding Team relates to other structures like the National Safeguarding Steering Group and the National Safeguarding Panel?  No doubt each group can legitimately justify their existence on the grounds that they have distinct tasks.  But clarity for some does not translate into readily comprehensible structures for those outside the system.  What we have, according to the letter to the CC, are organisations bewildering and confusing and which, according to their critics, routinely fail to deliver good practice and safety in the arena of safeguarding.

The Micah letter identifies eight areas of structural dysfunction in the safeguarding institutions of the CofE with a request for the CC to help.  I do not propose to go through each one, but I want to comment on three issues which continue to be important.  It is hard to claim that, overall, things in the safeguarding world are much improved or changed in the two years since the letter was written.  Each of the three issues that I pick out from the letter for this blog have a direct bearing on the Kenneth case.  No doubt they can be applied to many other cases that are floating around in the Church’s legal system.  There are certainly many such cases. I note in passing that a lot of energy is being expended by ordinary Christians in being members of safeguarding core groups.  These have the power to make life-changing decisions which can damage or seriously affect the lives of others in the Church.

The first issue mentioned by the Micah letter is that the Church operates its own closed system of legal enforcement where there are often no practicable means of appeal.  The enforcement system often refers appeals back to the original core group or committee responsible for making a judgement.  In Kenneth’s case, there is no means to appeal to an independent ombudsman.  Anonymous took his case to the top of the system, the NST, when she saw that natural justice was being denied him.  All the NST could offer in return was to suggest that she took her concerns back to the Diocese which had made serious blunders in the first place.  To quote the Micah letter: ‘No matter how egregious the failures to abide by the Church’s own rules or basic principles of good practice may be, there is no remedy’.

The second area of concern that I wish to highlight from the letter is that there is a distinct failure in the way that the Church applies justice fairly and consistently.  When an accusation is made over a safeguarding complaint, the individual so accused is sometimes required to step aside from their duties immediately.  On other occasions the accused person is allowed to ignore the pending CDM as though it did not exist.  In one notorious case a senior bishop was permitted to move from one diocese to another even though a serious safeguarding case against him was still unresolved.  By contrast the public humiliation of Lord Carey, in full glare of press coverage, was concerned with a minor issue.  The instant removal of his PTO was done virtually without notice and it was, apparently, an evening phone call from a newspaper that alerted him to his ban.  The case was eventually resolved after it was decided that there was no case to answer.  I understand from Private Eye that a CDM has been lodged against a member of the Christ Church chapter without a suspension being required. I assume we shall hear about the judgement in due course.  As someone has pointed out, the application of this church system of justice seems to depend on whether you are important or easily expendable.  We would hope that the rules of ‘stepping back’ in the face of safeguarding situations could be made far more transparent than they are at present.  Meanwhile, Kenneth is prohibited from attending any church building in the country for worship unless he signs an agreement for a crime that he claims he did not commit and for which there is no means of appeal.

The third area of gross injustice that seems to riddle the Church’s attempts at running a functioning justice system, is when conflicts of interest are not addressed.  Kenneth finds himself at the mercy of a core group where at least one of the members is a facebook friend of the boy at the centre of the case and his mother. This core group member is also a member of a Fan Club Page for the boy.  No one here, or in the Percy case, seemed to question the appropriateness of having people in a quasi-judicial role whose ability to be objective was compromised by their pre-existing relationship with the accused/complainant.  The seriousness of the conflict of interest question is squarely addressed by Lord Carlile when he says: ‘Anyone with a conflict of interest must leave the deliberations and take no further part…Having people on a core group with a conflict of interest is simply not sustainable and is, on the face of it, unlawful.’  The aftermath of the Christ Church affair will no doubt bring into the light a shocking catalogue of collusions between lawyers and publicity merchants.  Between them they have been successful in one thing, claiming enormous fees for the privilege of manipulating the Church’s legal system.  This has been undertaken for the ethically dubious and unsuccessful attempt by the malcontent dons to harass and persecute the Dean.

The Micah letter to the CC contains one further layer of interest.  Appended to the letter are around 70 names including my own.  The list contains many individuals who follow and contribute to the comments on this blog.  Indeed, it is a bit like a who’s who of those who are concerned for the proper functioning of the structures of the safeguarding world.  Among the names are many that I have never met in the flesh but, because of the work they are doing for survivors, are fellow soldiers in the cause to which this blog is dedicated.  My impression is that there are many other individuals who support the cause for good protocol and just process in the C/E safeguarding world.  They nevertheless hold back because they fear that it may affect their professional lives.  Thus, their names do not appear.  But it is my belief that there are many silently supporting the work of safeguarding reform.  The Micah letter, though now nearly two years old, can act as an interim manifesto.  Even though no practical changes were achieved through it – publicly at any rate – it remains an important resource document.  Simultaneously it pleads for reform and sets out a fairer, clearer and generally better way of delivering safeguarding for the vulnerable within the structures of the Church of England.

by Nell Hardy

Thank you to Stephen for inviting me to contribute to this blog, as someone who has silently been following it over the last few months. I am an actor, writer, theatre facilitator and the founder of Response Ability Theatre, a socially conscious company that seeks to represent and support people whose lives have been derailed by trauma. I am also a survivor of spiritual (among other) abuse from a Church of England priest, who was also my father.

While working on R.A.T.’s first show – NoMad, my solo piece about my experiences of homelessness and mental health hospitalisation – I worked with experts in theatre outreach and mental health interventions to develop a two-stranded workshop programme. One workshop is for trauma survivors: it explores physical, metaphorical and symbolic ways of identifying and giving expression to one’s experience of trauma, empowering survivors to make sense in themselves of the hold their trauma has on them, and to explain their needs and perspectives to those around them.

The other is for social and mental health service providers: it identifies empathy as the most valuable tool in the kit of anyone working directly with trauma survivors, and teaches performance-based breath techniques and body language awareness to support workers to remain emotionally available, and so able to inform their problem-solving with instinctive compassion, without being dangerously vulnerable or inappropriate. This strand in particular brings something very new to the welfare sectors, and has been received with great enthusiasm by professionals I have encountered who are committing to person-centred, trauma-informed work.

I am now beginning development of my company’s second show, which will explore spiritual abuse, the role of spirituality in modern life, and the struggle to live with integrity under structures fuelled by narcissism, individualism and fundamentalism (in both its religious and secular forms). My aim is to raise awareness in an increasingly secular, anti-religious society, of how difficult it is psychologically to remove oneself from philosophies that have shaped how you see yourself and the world around you, and practically to extricate yourself from the communities around which your way of life has been built. To draw comparisons between the spiritual abuse that can come from religious affiliation, and the punishing ideologies and practices we all have to accept and absorb to survive in the ‘civilised’ world. To look at what happens when we lose our power and inclination to reflect on the values by which we live, and from there to ask what it really means to be a nurturing, accommodating and respectful citizen.

The creative realization of this project will bring with it the adaptation and offer of my workshop programme to survivors of spiritual abuse, and to spiritual leaders such as priests, imams, rabbis – who, as readers of this blog will undoubtedly know, are effectively social workers thanks to the overlap of spiritual pastoral duties and legal safeguarding requirements for any organisation in the modern world. I would like to explain further why I think such work is crucial for the well-being of survivors of spiritual abuse, including those whose experience came from the Church; for priests and other faith leaders who find themselves ministering under the same styles of bureaucracy that grip our welfare services; and for the integrity of organised spiritual practice going forward.

The big problem we have with trauma is that it is necessarily triggered by a social wrong that needs to be addressed for any mental health intervention to be effective – but the second our society sees someone in distress without a cause that is to them visible, various disempowering labels start being attached to the person. A flock of geese that flies away out of fear on hearing an unexpected loud noise is responding appropriately to perceived threat, but someone who breaks down when left under the power of a cruel manipulator has severe anxiety, neuroses, a personality disorder. To wider society, these labels lead to the assumption that the person is delusional, or a compulsive liar, or in some way not to be trusted and believed. In the person themselves, it creates deep-set confusion about whether wrong was actually done to them in the first place or whether it was “all in their mind”, and heightened fight or flight physical responses to everyday scenarios that can leave them feeling powerless to speak for themselves.

So where does the Church come in? Well, for a start, it is responsible for an awful lot of trauma survivors in our world today – and I would argue that spiritual abuse results in the most internalised trauma of all. If a child is mistreated by a parent, and builds their self-esteem around that experience, it takes a long time free from that influence and making new healthier connections with other people to get on to a new path. If someone is misrepresented by psychiatry and doubts their functionality, it requires a lot of risk-taking to prove themselves internally and to others. But how about when someone is told that God wants them to suffer? What risk can give you an alternative to God’s voice? What higher power can validate you than God? Where do you go for healing when God is harmful?

The Church in our time is also effectively a support service. Priests are social workers, and as a result often fall into the same traps of invalidating treatment towards their congregations, getting caught between various services when they do genuinely try to help, and hiding behind ‘safeguarding’ procedures to avoid taking responsibility for their actions, as others working at the mercy of highly bureaucratic systems do. But weirdly – in my experience, anyway – the fact of it being a faith body, with staff on atypical payment patterns and running with a high percentage of volunteers, seems to exempt it from a whole host of policy checks and accountabilities. The Head of Safeguarding for the Church of England when I was working my way through the complaints process described the Church’s safeguarding practice as the weirdest she had ever come across – without seeming to think she had any responsibility or power to change it.

As a result, that mentality of protecting each other instead of protecting the individual easily seeps into their professional mode – and once it’s there on the pastoral side, it can easily seep into ministry as well. Cue preaching styles that invalidate, traumatize and re-traumatize, that dictate rather than inviting questions and thought. Spiritual services are theatrical events, in which spectators are engaged on a heightened emotive level, told what to say and when to say it, and not invited to contribute directly to the conversation. Like theatre, they can be profoundly thought-provoking and inspiring in the right hands, or dull, prescriptive and frightening in the wrong hands. And of course, unfortunately, there are those priests who actively use their ministry to harm or take advantage of people. These, like most abusers, know very, very well how to make general society’s ignorance about mental health and trauma to their advantage.

The more spiritual abuse survivors are able to express themselves with confidence and empathetic force, the more success stories we will see, the fewer will be allowed to be brushed off the shoulders of people who don’t care. And the more people in wider society who see the vital insights of these survivors, and empathise on a bodily, instinctive level with their struggles, the more heed we will find being paid to the social lessons to be learned from our experiences. And our increasingly secular, decreasingly spiritually reflective society certainly could do with being reminded of their own spiritual vulnerabilities, how they leave them open to manipulation in and out of spiritual spheres, and brought in touch with how to support those emerging from spiritual abuse in safe communities in wider society.

I would love to hear from readers about if anyone else has used creativity as a kind of therapeutic intervention – and if so, if this was done in a Church or religion-conscious sphere? Neither Stephen nor I are aware of this offer existing anywhere. If something were to be started, do you think you would find it beneficial to your recovery?

And on the note of the public play I will eventually be putting on – what would you want wider secular society to understand about being a believer, or survivor of spiritual abuse, or reliant on a Church/spiritual community for acceptance and safety, in our times?

If I haven’t dizzied you with words already, I would like to welcome you to have a look at my website, www.responseabilitytheatre.com, for more information about my practice.

For those of us who appreciate traditional church music, Ash Wednesday is something of a highlight.  My wife and I ‘attended’ the broadcast Sung Eucharist from Durham Cathedral where, as part of the service, we listened to the glories of Tallis’ Lamentations and the Miserere by Allegri.  It is an extraordinary paradox that, at the moment in the Church’s year when we are remembering the depravity of human beings, we should also be hearing music that is at the pinnacle of human genius. 

‘Remember that you are but dust and unto dust you shall return.’   These words lie haunting over the entire Lenten liturgy for Ash Wednesday.  Somehow, we need to make sense of them.  The sublimity of the music may lead us away from considering ourselves like mere dust when fellow members of our kind can produce works of such quality. Will beauty like this ever die if there are human beings to sing it and listen to it?  But the Lenten emphasis on humankind burdened by sin and moving towards the dust of death must still be thought about.  We need to take these words and ideas seriously as part of our Lenten work as Christians.   Even though we might want to push such apparently gloomy notions away, the pervasive nature of evil in our lives, and in humankind generally, has to be something we look at calmly and fearlessly.

In previous posts I have often tried to grapple with the problem of evil.  Of course, discussion on this topic is never exhausted.  A particular challenge to our current understanding of good and evil, are the reports of the shelling of civilian areas in Ukraine and the insane firing of tank shells at a nuclear power station.  The Ukrainian war is in all our minds and is one example of how far human beings can sink in depravity, towards an evil that is beyond imagining. 

In my simple way, I have discovered one uncomplicated idea that I find helpful in trying to fathom the nature of evil.  Any evil action by a human being can nearly always be laid at the door of somebody’s craving for power and for the gratifications that seem to be promised through having it.  To have this single word, power, appearing in almost every example of human evil that we can think of, helps us to have a better handle on the phenomenon.  In summary we might claim that human evil nearly always involves the abuse of power of some kind.  Such an overarching idea also helps us to see how evil is so difficult to eliminate in one’s own life.  No one is ever completely clear of power abuse which is behind every example of human evil.  Thankfully, most of us avoid the severe manifestations of power abuse, like theft, rape, violence, selfish greed, and cruelty.  But many lesser kinds may well clutter up our lives.  These need to be dealt with in some sort of act of confession.  The important thing in making any such act of confession is the acknowledgement of how easily we can harm or neglect others.  It is so easy to hide this evil, even from ourselves. Being convinced of our rectitude, like the Pharisee in the Temple, is a form of hypocrisy that Jesus did not much care for.  Abuse of power, whether serious or minor is part of an endemic human disease in society.  Its toxicity is far more dangerous when it is not acknowledged.  There is also such a thing as ‘respectable’ evil.  By this term I refer to a way of undermining another person using the tools of an institution with which to do it.  A great deal of bullying and power abuse uses outwardly legitimate methods.  It is sometimes difficult, consequently, to spot what is really going on.  Even in the church, some evil situations can occur which are entirely hidden from sight.  The ‘innocence’ of the perpetrators is protected from coming into awareness because the ‘regulations are being followed’.  An illegitimate and immoral exercise of power towards an individual in an institutional context can still be evil even if, on paper, the correct procedures are in operation.  The person or people who have the potential to fully recognise the nature of the evil are the perpetrators.  All too often they are well-versed at the art of self-deceit.

If we are to do a good job at attempting to come to terms with our own personal temptation to do evil, a good starting place is to consider our personal relationship with power in the various contexts in which we live our lives.  Do we hanker after it?  Do we find that we resent not having it or, worse still, is there some pathological resentment from our pasts that makes us chase after it with an unusual and unhealthy determination?  There are two words in our vocabulary that look similar but help to describe perspectives on power and its possession.  One is humiliation and other humility.

 Many people in various ways have suffered humiliation in childhood or subsequently.  Some have overcome the effects of this traumatic experience in a healthy way and have gone on to discover self-esteem and live lives that do not beat others down.  Humiliation by parents and others, as we all know, can also have a variety of damaging and lasting effects on the way we approach life.  It can lead to a fiercely competitive approach when approaching other people.  Among the many defensive stances found in an individual who is haunted by memories of parental humiliation are the self-inflation techniques we associate with severe cases of narcissism.  In previous posts, we have noted how commonly this personality distortion is found among the clergy.  More serious a concern is the fact that clergy with high degrees of narcissism and with a longing and a need for power, are the ones that are often chosen to exercise it within the institution.  Within the Church we allow some individuals to take roles of power where they are no longer under any sort of challenge or supervision.  Such possession of unsupervised power, coupled with the disorder associated with narcissism, is an extreme danger to those under them and destructive to the wider Church.

The other word we identified, humility, can be translated by the words having your feet on the ground.  A bishop or leader with a hierarchical position, who also possesses humility, is one that consults, listens to counsel and above all has done the inner work of constantly challenging their personal relationship with power.  The humble prelate is one who listens.  Such people listen to the people who come to them; they listen to God in their quiet times of prayer.  Intellectually and spiritually, they are known for their flexibility.  This blog takes a strong stand against systems of theology or biblical interpretation that pronounce that one single version of truth or opinion is correct or sound with all others being in error.  We find such rigidity and failure of flexibility in the systems of management and teaching which, for example, we have come to associate with the Iwerne network and the ReNew cluster of churches.  These are examples of places where there is likely to be precious little in the way of challenging of personal or institutional power.  The statements that emerged from these conservative networks in response to the Living in Love and Faith material were totally lacking in humility or nuance.  President Putin, in the current war in Ukraine, is impossible to deal with because he has, like many conservative Christian leaders, only a single version of truth – his own truth.  Christian leaders who fail to have a measure of flexibility, humility, or the ability to see things from another’s point of view, will always be stumbling blocks for the churches. Christian individuals under their leadership will find that their guidance is not a path to Christian freedom but one to spiritual enslavement.  Such enslavement, linked with the lust for power among their leaders, is close to being a truly dark place.

In this reflection I have identified evil as being strongly linked to an inappropriate human lust for power.  Of course, this is an incomplete account of evil, but space and the patience of my readers puts a limit on what I can say further here.  I want to finish by suggesting how the quality of humility can change a desire for power over another into something humane and resembling what Christians mean by love.  English gives us three words which are the heart of humility and humble service, and they are impossible to have in any power game that might be being played.  The words are empower, empathise and encourage.  It is striking that each word has the prefix em or en.  Without doing a lexicon search on these words, I am going to assume that each verb has the prefix which is the Greek for ‘in’.  Each word is about giving something to another person, putting in power, courage or getting close to them by a readiness to feel their suffering.  The process of giving to another person, through one of the actions implied by these words, means automatically that no power is being wielded over them by us.  The words imply, in fact, that we are giving power away, and thus neutralising any evil that there might exist in the relationship.  To give power away is a strong indication that we are not trying to keep it for ourselves. 

As children, some of us were taught the moral teaching on how to talk to another.  ‘Is it true, is it kind, is it necessary?’  Perhaps another way of keeping ourselves from evil is to ask a similar question about our dealings with others in word or deed.   Does it empower, does it encourage, and does it show true empathy?   If what we do or say does one or more of these things, it is likely that we are avoiding the deadly trap of playing power games with others.  These are in different degrees and different intensities the source of much evil in the world.

by Janet Fife

People of faith, even heroes of the faith, sometimes turn out to be abusive. We feel betrayed and let down, and rightly so. But this is not a modern phenomenon: it’s as old as faith itself, and Abraham ‘the father of faiths’. Here’s another take on his story.

ʻBe your own person,ʼ you say. ʻYou have choices.ʼ

Choices? Choices? If bloody only! If you can make your own choices youʼre one of the lucky few. Or (since youʼre religious) one of the blessed. And Iʼve never been blessed. Thatʼs always for others.

Some said I was blessed, being Sarah’s personal slave. Sarah was one of Godʼs favourites. At least, Abraham was one of Godʼs favourites, and Sarah was his woman. His wife, as she liked to point out. Forcibly, sometimes. But Iʼll be coming to that.

For a long while I did think I was lucky to be their slave – if I had to be anyoneʼs slave, that is. Slaves have a tough time of it in Egypt, where I come from. Abraham and Sarah were elderly and not too demanding, though they did move around a lot. And then, as I said, they were God’s favourites, his blessed. Everything went well for them. Abraham was rich, there were lots of us slaves to share out the work, and the tents were comfortable. We ate

well, drank well, and slept well. Wherever we went, people didnʼt mess with us. You get a lot of respect if youʼre rich.

So youʼd think they’d have counted their blessings, but no. Abraham was convinced God wanted him to be an ancestor – the Ancestor. And they had no children. None at all, not even a girl. They were desperate for kids. Iʼd have liked to have babies too, of course, but no one thought of that. I was only Sarah’s slave Hagar, and I wasnʼt supposed to have any feelings. Or any choices.

The years went by, and the biological clock was ticking.  Sarah had long ago gone through the menopause and out the other side. And I wasnʼt a little girl any more. I hadnʼt been for a while, but theyʼd only just noticed.  Then Sarah did notice, and had a bright idea.  I could have a baby for her! It may sound weird to you, but that was our custom, and the law.  If a wife had no children, she could let her husband sleep with one of her slaves. The child would belong to the wife, not to its natural mother. But it still wouldnʼt inherit from the father, unless he adopted it.

Nobody consulted me, of course. I was just Hagar the slave. A slave has no voice, no feelings, and no choices. What a shock it was when Abraham came into my tent that night, and took off his clothes.  I was confused, embarrassed – and frightened.  But he was gentle with me. He was an old man, and old men learn patience. Iʼd never wanted a partner who was 86, but I did learn to appreciate him. I had time to learn, because there were many such nights.

Then my periods stopped, and I felt sickly in the mornings. I couldnʼt bear the taste of dates, and longed instead for capers. The child they – we – were desperate for was on the way. Abraham and Sarah were thrilled. So thrilled I was promoted from slave to wife. And that was neither custom nor the law.

Abraham, always gentle, became tender and considerate. For the first time in his very long experience, a woman was carrying his child. He made much of me, fussed over me.

Nobody had ever made a fuss of me before, nobody had ever cared whether I was comfortable, nobody had ever seen that what I fancied, I ate. Now I was not only equal to Sarah, I was getting more attention than her. And it went to my head. I was the mother of the heir. I had status. And I began to look down on Sarah, who had never been pregnant. I was more of a woman than she was!

There was an end to the peace, an end to the happiness of the household. Sarah had words with Abraham. Loud words. Abraham gave in, of course. As I said, he was gentle. Anything for peace. Sarah got her way, and I was a divorced woman, and a slave again. It was worse than before, because now Sarah had it in for me. I wasnʼt her personal slave now, I got all the

drudgery and the hard work. Heavy work, and me heavy with child. She rubbed my face in it too. She shouted, she taunted, she was abusive. And with my hormones all over the place, and the emotional roller coaster Iʼd been on, I couldnʼt deal with it. Iʼd had a taste of freedom, of being my own person. I wanted that back again.

So one day, when I went to fetch water from the well, I just kept on walking.  It wasnʼt planned. I simply couldnʼt face going back, so I headed for the road to Egypt. I walked a long way, and at last I stopped at a well beside the road. I sat down for a bit. The sun was at its height, it was blazing hot, and it would be foolish to stray far from the well until the day cooled. The baby moved inside me. And suddenly I realised what Iʼd done. I was alone, pregnant,

without shelter or food, vulnerable to any bandit or rapist who came along. And I was now an outlaw.

For once in my life Iʼd made a choice – and now I was at a dead end. I felt

horribly alone, and desperate. Then a man appeared, and I mean appeared. One minute I was alone, the next this guy was sitting next to me. Strangely I didnʼt feel threatened at all. He felt…safe, somehow.

ʻWhat are you doing here, Hagar, Sarahʼs maid?ʼ he asked. He knew me, no point in lying. So I admitted Iʼd run away. We had a long talk then. I told him everything. About my master and mistress, who were so blessed by God, and how theyʼd treated me. How for the first time in my life Iʼd begun to feel that I mattered, and how good that had felt. How, as my belly swelled, it had all gone pear-shaped. He listened to it all.

No one had listened before. No one had cared how I felt. And because he didnʼt tell me off, and he seemed sympathetic, somehow I could admit to him – to myself – that Iʼd messed up too.

At last he spoke. My child – my child, not just Abrahamʼs  – would be a boy. He  would be the father of many nations. I too was called by God to be an ancestor. I should call the lad Ishmael, which means ʻGod hearsʼ. Ishmael would be like the wild donkey, free and proud. No one would ever tame him. He would have no friends, no family but me. He would depend on no one but himself.

That was special. The Lord, the God of all the world – the God of Abraham and Sarah – was my God too. He cared about my child, and not just because he was Abrahamʼs son.

ʻGod has heard your misery,ʼ he said.

Then came the hard part. I had to go back to Sarah and submit to her. But what option did I have? It was that or die here in the desert, with my baby unborn. And my lad would need his father. So we went back, to an uneasy truce.

You know the rest of the story. How Isaac, ʻthe child of promiseʼ, was born to Sarah 14 years later. And Ishmael, used to being the only child and heir, and the apple of his father’s eye, was suddenly nowhere. We were both non-persons again. Worse, we were thrown out.

Again I wandered in the desert, and this time we were nowhere near a road or a well. We got lost, Ishmael and I. Ishmael collapsed first. I laid him in what scrubby shade I could find, and retreated a little way. I couldn’t bear to watch my child die.  I wept aloud.  So did Ishmael, he in his small corner and I in mine.

No stranger appeared, there was no one. But a voice called from nowhere,

ʻWhat is the matter, Hagar? Your weeping has been heard, your boy will live and become a great nation.ʼ

And suddenly we were given the skills to survive in the desert. God made my eyes keen to see the signs of hidden water. I found some straight away and gave Ishmael a drink. I got good at foraging for fruit and veg; we got our five a day. Ishmael learned to track game, and make bows and arrows out of desert shrubs. We found a way to live, and Ishmael became a man. His own man, and in need of a wife.

Finding a wife for him was his fatherʼs job, of course. The man chooses the bloodlines from which his descendants will come. But Abraham had opted out. So I, Hagar, the slave, at last had a choice to make.

It was a choice that would shape the destiny of nations. From out of Egypt I chose a wife for my son.

And so our dynasty began.

All of us have been profoundly disturbed and dismayed by the events currently going on in Ukraine.  Few of my readers will have any direct links with the country and thus many of us will have had to cram up on reading a bit of historical/political background to make some sense of the unfolding drama. I have a tiny emotional involvement with the country of Ukraine which comes from a meeting I had some years ago, when I was acting as a bank chaplain at my local hospital.  There I met a remarkable Ukrainian man who was a patient.  He was born in 1928, so he had lived through a succession of catastrophic episodes in the history of his country before coming Britain in the 1950s.  As a small child living in the countryside, he and his family had gone through the terrible famines of the 30s, when millions starved to death.  This was a by-product of Stalin’s struggle against the kulaks or prosperous peasant class.   Ten years or so later, Ukraine suffered the depredations of the invading German army.  This was followed three years later by the recapture of his homeland by the Soviet army.  Both armies treated the ordinary people appallingly.  The Soviet’s reason for persecuting the ordinary working people derived from an intense suspicion of the whole population.  In 1941 some Ukrainians had welcomed the Germans initially as liberators, because the invaders were pretending to be freeing them from Stalin and the Communist yoke. 

The 20^th century history of Ukraine is enormously complex and, as well, has been extremely dangerous for those who live there.  Nevertheless, my hospital patient had lived through much of it in his youth and was still alive in his late 80s.  He was, I think, grateful to talk to someone who had an interest of the history of his former homeland.  This current invasion evokes, for some, previous episodes of incursions of destructive foreign armies as they make their way across the vast flat plains of the country.  We have no idea what the future will bring for this unhappy nation, but there are some grounds for feeling some hope that things may not end in complete disaster. 

What are my reasons for having a modicum of hope in this dreadful situation?  The first reason for feeling hope is that there is an extraordinary act of foolishness for a president to send his troops off to war without allowing them to know for what cause they are fighting.  Putin has seemingly become so confident in his grasp of power over the Russian people that he has omitted to pay attention to this basic requirement of war.  Soldiers always need to understand and believe in the cause for which they are fighting.  Without any sense of purpose, history suggests that even the best equipped armies will be far less effective, especially when the ‘enemy’ looks and sounds very much like they are.

The second ground for hope is that the Russians army is , at the time of writing, facing stiff resistance.  The cost of the war for the Russians is, apparently, some £15 billion a day.  It is doubtful that the Russian war chest is big enough to withstand a prolonged conflict, especially when under economic attack from the whole of the rest of the world.  But the greater challenge to the Russian cause is that the miasma of lies explaining the war to the general public is beginning to come apart at the seams.  The Russian authorities have been long preparing for a war where they could be portrayed as an army of liberation, rescuing a benighted and persecuted Russian speaking minority from a ‘Nazi’ dominated government based in Kyiv.  American intelligence helpfully undermined the government’s narrative, by announcing each of the ‘provocations’ or ‘false flag’ events before they actually happened.  Somehow, the announcement by Moscow that Ukraine’s government was shelling their own people did not sound to be a very convincing item of ‘news’.  Through the work of their intelligence services, the Americans seemed to know all about this and other forms of propaganda before they were released as ‘news’.  Putin’s reasoning and justifications for the Ukraine invasion have also drawn on so many extraordinary and completely bogus historical claims that no one seems to know what the real reasons for war might actually be.  Lies are hard things to manage because, when truth disappears from a narrative, it is quite difficult for all the different stakeholders to remember the version of the lie that they are supposed to be upholding.

When lies become embedded in a narrative or an institution, they make that structure very brittle and fragile.  It only takes one person to see that the Emperor is not as well dressed as he was supposed to be to create a fissure in the organisation that cannot easily be repaired.  Lies or the suppression of truth may work for a while in any setting, but the truth has a habit of eventually coming out.  Putin’s lies as well as his paranoid behaviour will be eventually completely understood even more that they are at present.  Even if the Russians overcome the Ukrainian army in the present round of conflict, the real story, the account of Ukrainian courage amidst their suffering will continue to resonate for decades and centuries to come.  When we talk about the verdict of history, we are talking about something very powerful indeed.  All the myths and fake propaganda coming out of Russia, will quickly be forgotten by future generations.  They will demand to know the truth, free of any political garnish.  The weaknesses of the Russian perspective on the war have now become so clear that few people will take the trouble even to remember what is being said as the official narrative.  History will be clinically factual and brutal in its critique of the despicable power games being played by the Russian president.  Can Putin do anything to reverse the impression that his only real concern in being head of the Russian people is to protect the massive amounts of wealth that he has looted from his own people over the past 20 plus years?

The Ukrainian war has already lasted four days (I am writing this on Sunday).  The fact that the Ukrainian people have the will and determination to resist, in spite of the overwhelming and sophisticated weapons being used against them, is remarkable.  Every act of resistance shows that the myth, that Ukrainians are desperate to be rescued from an oppressive government, is a lie.  Every hour of fighting makes this particular Russian Putinesque propaganda less credible.  The country has already produced its own martyrs.  Individuals have given their lives defending their motherland and, no doubt, there will be many more. Among them is Vitaly Shakun who blew himself up along with a bridge he was defending, thus delaying the Russian advance. Martyrs in the Christian tradition had the power to convince the cruel and jaded culture of the Roman empire that there are other ways to live.  Altruism, self-sacrifice and humble service still have power to create complete change in others.  We see echoes of the early Church in the events of today in Ukraine.  The one who has the political and military power (like the Roman Emperor or the Russian army) may appear to be victorious, but not in the eyes of posterity.

The fate of the Ukrainian people is still very much in the balance.   The hope is that whatever their short-term suffering, the long-term result for the nation will be that the cause of truth and the triumph of honesty and integrity will have the last word.  Indeed, the heroes of Ukraine shine like a bright light when compared with the cynical obsession with wealth and power that is the main concern of the real enemies, the Russian elite and the President. Although the current Ukrainian heroism is inspired by political and nationalistic factors, there is a lesson for Christians.  Ukraine is not simply a reminder of something close to our tradition of Christian martyrdom; it is also a prompt to remind us that all Christians as well as their institutions stand under the judgement of history.  If and when Christian institutions play fast and loose with integrity and honesty, they too will be judged harshly by the future. 

The theme of this blog has meant that I, as editor, have become very sensitised to the issue of integrity in Christian institutions.  Like my readers, I have looked on while the reputations of both institutions and individuals have been reassessed or even trashed by the power of the verdict of history.  Like the Russian state, there are some church entities whose reputations have been sustained by wealth, power or legal protections.  These have then dissolved when the truth about their activities has later emerged.  No amount of money can buy off the verdict of history.  Safeguarding stories lead the list of narratives that have powerfully shredded reputations. Andrew Graystone’s work on the Smyth affair has revealed how a clique of powerful churchmen has protected the institutional interests of a social religious elite over a long period of time.  Another book, yet to be written, will uncover how institutions and wealth have been allowed to persecute in order to preserve privilege and power at Christ Church Oxford.  In short, the professional historians of the future will, no doubt, be revealing the shame, the subterfuge and the lies that have sometimes become enmeshed in the power structures of the Church of England and other denominations that protect the interests of a few.   The thing that constantly amazes those of us who get involved in the sensitive details of safeguarding scandals, is how many apparently upright individuals are prepared to sacrifice their integrity when tempted by the gratifications of power and influence.  To misquote Scripture once again.  For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his integrity, his reputation and his honesty?  President Putin has amassed the largest financial fortune that the world has ever seen, but it seems that he will end up the most despised individual of this century.   How many others, even in the Church, are following him in a small way by submitting to the temptation of gaining institutional and personal power but losing their integrity in the process?

by Josephine Stein

What is the purpose of safeguarding? What and who exactly is safeguarding for in the Church of England and what is at stake?  And how can one assess how well structures, processes and people achieve safeguarding objectives?

The best way to understand ecclesiastical safeguarding is to benchmark its practices against other sectors which have proven successful, such as aviation and healthcare.  The aviation industry rewards workers for promptly reporting dangerous situations, including those arising from their own mistakes.  Professionalism underpins patient safety and well-being in the healthcare sector, with the General Medical Council setting standards for the professional duty of candour (www.gmc-uk.org).  This requires healthcare professionals to inform patients, as well as their colleagues, employers and relevant organisations, when things go wrong and how they are being set right (see Matthew Syed, Black Box Thinking). 

What a contrast to the Church! 

Safeguarding in the Church is adversarial, requiring those who suspect problems to report them to their Diocesan Safeguarding Advisor / Officer.  The DSA/O can then instigate a process which is protracted, expensive and damaging to just about everyone involved.  Survivors are often forced to drive the complaints process while the Church delays, obscures and frustrates the process.  The Clergy Discipline Measure is unsuitable for responding to safeguarding allegations and has been weaponized against innocent clergy.  Many of the people who ought to be protected are severely harmed, most notably survivors, but also the accused. 

A large operation exists to control safeguarding, generating numerous policies and guidelines along with periodic compulsory training, ‘lessons learned’ reviews (including PCRs 1 and 2) and compliance audits.  

‘Standards for the Professional Conduct of the Clergy’ do not address self-reflection in clergy nor behavioural standards of ministry, let alone a professional duty of candour. 

Perpetrators may be shunned but are not cared for in the way one would expect of a Christian institution; care for survivors is perceived as grudging and inadequate.  According to former DSA, spiritual director and psychotherapist Fiona Gardner, the institutional Church has a corporate personality resembling those of individual perpetrators of abuse (Gardner, 2021).  Not surprisingly, 100% of a sample of 2,000 survivors reported that the Church’s responses to disclosures were worse than the original abuse.

What lessons are being learned?  Are we any safer as a result of Church safeguarding activities?

Much has been said and written about the need to change the culture of the Church, but what this means is very unclear.  It may take a very long time to effect widespread behavioural change and confidence in safety if left to the powers that be. 

Meanwhile, how can the Church’s safeguarding activities achieve better value for money?

Assessing the state of the Church’s safeguarding culture and of ‘value for money’ needs to be provided by an evaluation conducted by independent professionals, following a clear and inclusive methodology.  The process involves gathering input from all groups of people affected by safeguarding, and collating views including both shared and differing understandings.  Those who have been abused (survivors) represent the most important group in an evaluation as ‘end users’ of safeguarding practice, along with the small proportion of clergy who have been falsely accused of abuse. 

Who are the other stakeholders?  In addition to perpetrators, PCCs and congregations, there are safeguarding professionals, lawyers, trainers, reviewers, administrators and insurers; and clergy such as parish priests, cathedral canons and deans, archdeacons and bishops. 

Stakeholders would be asked what they believe the specific objectives of safeguarding currently are and ought to be.  All will have views on this as well as on the effectiveness of safeguarding systems currently in place.  And all will have particular interests of their own which are not necessarily articulated.

The next step is for the evaluators to identify verifiable objectives.  These will reveal which safeguarding systems and structures are working well and if not, what remedial steps would be required.  Not least, evaluators will see how spending maps onto safeguarding objectives.

To identify value for money, evaluators need to gather data on safeguarding spending.  This has been notoriously difficult to pin down as the Church either does not collect the relevant statistics centrally, nor necessarily provide information, for example to General Synod, on safeguarding expenditure by the National Church.

However, it is possible to estimate safeguarding expenditure by the dioceses and the National Church Institutions (NCIs) ahead of a full evaluation, because the main element is personnel.  A survey of all 42 diocesan safeguarding webpages showed that they employ 182 DSAs, assistants, trainers, case workers and administrative assistants.  Some work part time, but other Church officers serve on core groups/case management groups or support safeguarding through their other roles such as membership on Diocesan Safeguarding Advisory Panels and General Synod; archdeacons have coal-face responsibilities and consultants are brought in e.g. to conduct case reviews, for risk assessment and to deliver training – and there are costs associated with time attending training sessions.  Salary data can be estimated from sampling job advertisements. 

In response to a General Synod question (Tim Bull, November 2021), data were provided on the staff on the National Safeguarding Team (NST) and gross expenditure from 2016 – 2020; these can be extrapolated.  The NST currently employs 26.5 FTE staff/consultants and spends approximately £4.4 million/year.  Other NCI staff having safeguarding as part of their portfolio come from comms, ministry, legal and HR departments.  Members of the National Safeguarding Working Group based in Church House service the National Safeguarding Steering Group and contribute to safeguarding work by the Archbishops’ Council, the House of Bishops, General Synod and other bodies. 

Reputational managers and external lawyers, who in turn contract medical experts for advice in civil cases, also add to the costs of safeguarding along with insurance.  In addition, the Church brings in consultants and temporary staff to conduct audits and Past Cases Reviews, plus ‘lessons learned’ reviews in cases of major safeguarding failures.  Although precision is difficult, costs estimates are possible based on information in the public domain, familiarity with consultancy rates and indicative research data. 

Bishops’ expenses are covered by the Church Commissioners, who paid for external lawyers involved with IICSA. 

There are safeguarding meetings, ‘Safeguarding Summits’, conferences and workshops (although blended and online meetings have lowered costs).

There are also payments to survivors bringing civil suits, through the Interim Support Scheme plus money for counselling and therapeutic support, most often from dioceses. 

It goes beyond the scope of this particular exercise to make detailed estimates of current safeguarding expenditure; it might come to about £30 million/year for the Church as a whole.  However, one thing seems clear to me.  The CofE safeguarding apparatus employs or contracts a great many people in an ever-expanding process with the creation of more new and revised policies, more updated training, more reviews, more audits and a concomitant increase in expenditure.  There is a proliferation of new bodies (Safe Spaces, the National Safeguarding Panel, the Interim Support Scheme, the Independent Safeguarding Board and a Redress Fund under development) that together consume a great deal of time and money; they employ or contract more and more people.

What safeguarding achievements can be attributed to each activity?  Does the associated expenditure represent ‘value for money’?  A comprehensive, independent evaluation would need to answer these questions.  However, based on my experience as research director for an evaluation of a 25-country European programme with structural similarities to the CofE, I would expect that savings of at least half of current expenditure could be achieved if the Church’s safeguarding structures and activities were to be rationalized.  Some of the money saved could be redirected towards achieving the verified objectives identified by the evaluators as insufficiently resourced. 

Church safeguarding culture can be assessed through (1) examining IICSA evidence;  and (2) benchmarking against other denominations and secular sectors such as aviation and healthcare whose safety records outperform the Church. 

Safeguarding cannot simply be a matter of complying with edicts handed down from the National Church.  The objectives of safeguarding need precise articulation, along with their respective importance / value. 

All the laws in the world do not prevent crime; nor does the Church’s adversarial approach to safeguarding protect survivors or those facing allegations – along with their families and congregations.

We must never forget the ‘core business’ of the Church.  It is Christianity.  Living the faith involves confession, repentance, efforts to set right the damage done and asking for forgiveness.  Christians are expected to take responsibility for their sins – and for the harm done to others.  A hierarchical system based on adversarial processes to deal with safeguarding failures is inherently dangerous.  And the trend towards employing more non-Christian people with secular work experience based on putting adherence to rules ahead of the well-being of people exacerbates the dangers at the expense of the vulnerable.  We need to put the love of God and of our fellow human beings first, as Jesus did when healing on the Sabbath.  That is our calling and our discipleship.

***************

Dr Josephine Anne Stein

Independent researcher, policy analyst and survivor of ecclesiastical abuse

by David Brown

All bullying represents a breach of our Lord’s second great commandment – ‘to love your neighbour as yourself’. There is mounting evidence of the bullying of parish clergy by their overseers in our Church, whether through avoidance or misuse of the existing disciplinary measures.  This represents a failure in both following Christ’s commandment and episcopal leadership.  Such behaviour, observed across several dioceses, is causing real personal harm, but, though reported by many voices, this is consistently unheeded.  There is, therefore, an urgent demand to scrutinise the culture that allows for such behaviour.  If such allegations are correct, the Church of England has lost its way and is seriously off message.  It risks being an organisation in denial, distracting itself with memories of its former moral authority and with ideas of exceptionalism and entitlement, described in the IICSA Report as a “culture of clericalism”. 

The question arises how our Lord’s commandment appears overlooked in the institutional Church.  In this article, I compare Christian living today with the biblical revelation on how we should live as individuals.

Jesus spoke to Peter in words seldom noticed today, ‘I will build my Church….’ (Matt 16.18). Today’s Church seems determined to build itself organisationally, with Church leaders applying much effort and considerable finance to the objective of Church Growth rather than Kingdom Growth, somehow conflating the two, promoting what Angela Tilby as describes ‘organisational thinking….so making our bishops and deans believe they are meant to be organisation men and women, managers, top-down thinkers.’ This leads to the promotion and implementation of approaches like ‘Mission Action Planning’, and other initiatives that don’t spring from local parish life.

Any striving for worldly success, however worthy, gives rise to ambition and competitiveness. When this serves ill-defined concepts of ‘success’ and how it may be measured, we have a recipe for undermining, rather than promoting, the work of the Church. Such an approach is surely the utter reverse of the model that Jesus gave with the washing of the disciples’ feet at the Last Supper, servant leadership. One explanation for increasing reports of clergy feeling bullied might lie on the pressure senior clergy feel to succeed. Does not a skewed focus on ‘Church Leadership’ distract from a greater focus on ‘Christ Followership’?

I find nothing significant in the New Testament about church rank.  Its presence in the Body of Christ is therefore problematic. It doesn’t sit well with the ‘servant’ role, of which Jesus gave an accurate demonstration, his own intention being ‘to be among you as one who serves’.  It requires and then creates an ever-deepening humility.  I think a lack of rank-consciousness may be glimpsed in Gal 2.11. The apostles had freedom to disagree and challenge. However, both Jesus and St Paul, because of their God-given roles, had to be tough and demanding on more than one occasion, neither were ever punitive.  In any organisation, it is important for everyone to have a clear understanding of what is expected of them, with accountability for proper performance an essential feature.  The inherited culture and language within the Church has failed to address this.

Similarly, the New Testament does not describe either Jesus or St Paul devising, rolling out and imposing any strategic plan on others. The word ‘plan’ and its variations appear in the gospels solely describing the manoeuvres of the High Priest, scribes and Pharisees (e.g. John 11.53;12.10; Acts 25.3). Jesus’ approach was to set a living example.  The Apostles were not being obedient to strategy documents (Acts 5.20; Acts 10 – Peter and Cornelius). Paul was directed by the Holy Spirit (Acts 13), not a Mission Action Plan. To a remarkable degree, his life was dominated by severe circumstances—expelled from synagogues and cities, often imprisoned, shipwrecked four times, adrift at sea for a night and day, and having spontaneous visions. All these defined God’s way for him. If Paul had focused on safe-guarding his reputation, his apostleship would have been very different.

Where the apostles went, the Kingdom grew. It was a combination of being invited, being obedient to God and the Lord’s transforming power that affected the people they encountered. The reality of God was conveyed by the apostles’ lifestyles, and by the words given to them to use. God’s presence and fragrant love were palpable. They were not adopting management techniques but following God’s pattern demonstrated in Jesus. This involved engagement with people wherever they were found.  They were not seeking to build any organisational structure.

After his resurrection, Jesus said to his followers, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.” (John 19.20-23). Is this today’s pattern? Are we consciously sent out, like Jesus, in the Spirit’s power, seeking to change people’s lives for the better? Or do we, embarrassed by this task, offer to our confused world a jumble of doctrines, liturgy, visual effects and concepts which do not readily connect with those without a faith in the living God?  To what extent are the Gifts and the Fruit of the Spirit looked for and discerned in the appointment of Church Leaders?

God’s revealed way is not necessarily intellectual. Jesus’ main longing in his prayer in John 17 for people to communicate his glory (vs.1-10) and his unity (vs.20-24). Surely these are the ‘world-changers’ for his Church to channel, their significance being that neither can be faked – they are either palpable or absent. Genuine demonstration and display of Christ-like behaviours in everyday life can, on their own, bring conviction of God’s present reality, much more than liturgical ritual or any contrived special techniques.

What kind of leadership is adopted is key, a topic not notably addressed. The concept of ‘leadership’ can too easily be interpreted as one in which one person directs another—the idea of a reciprocal relationship in which each party can learn from the other being totally absent.  Any ‘Leadership training’ not based on gospel values will be counterproductive, if it prompts striving for results by control-techniques, and managerialism. ‘Leadership skills’ have great value if they nourish the led and foster godly relationships, a proper father-son/parent-child relationship where space is allowed in which to develop a healthy degree of individuality.  Although the Son, one feels that Christ was still his own man. Powerful teaching and training is best achieved through example, something, sadly, overlooked in too many places, diminishing leader/led relationships as a consequence.

Translating policies into actions requires appropriate systems.  However, systems involve people and so a proper understanding of how people function in all their diversity is paramount.  Is this not where senior clergy fail?  Little can be achieved without cooperation.  This is not gained by directives and coercion, but by persuasion and sound argument, winning hearts and minds.  A culture of cooperation is not aided by our church’s pattern of independence at all levels, whether it is diocesan bishops to archbishops, archdeacons to bishops, parish priests to archdeacons or to the laity they serve, each operates in personal fiefdoms. Cooperation and coordinated effort seem undervalued, with some episcopal actions often appearing more punitive than compassionate and restorative.

Should not the qualities such as being filled with love through the Spirit, being a self-disciplined follower of ‘the Way,’ possessing integrity, self-denial, and trust in God to direct their path, an ability to ‘read a landscape’ and to relate well with others, be necessities in the leaders of the Church? Leadership qualities may be enhanced through training, but are they not supremely secured by the Spirit-led appointment of those whom God has prepared, as Christ was prepared?

An emphasis on ‘measurable success’, ‘church growth’ and ’leadership skills’ is deflection from the core need to deploy love and risks opening the door to bullying. With mounting pressures to ‘succeed’—for leaders’ own ego, advancement or to ensure financial viability—will not human ‘initiatives increase, together with pressure on front-line clergy to demonstrate ‘ministerial effectiveness’? Failure to achieve is easily interpreted as being obstructive and bullying becomes only a ‘whisker’ away. Leaders, unless they walk in the Spirit, will fail to recognise the natural dangers of a situation they have created and then deal with others disrespecting their dignity.

So, what might be done about the bullying of clergy by their overseers? Oswald Chambers reminds us    “If we trust to our wits instead of to God, we produce consequences for which God will hold us responsible. …. Our natural life must not rule, God must rule in us.” (‘My Utmost for His Highest’, 28th Dec, cf. Matt 18.3).

The secular societies have progressed from autocracies to democracies, regulating the exercise of power.  The Church needs to go on a similar journey, however painful it might be, recognising this elephant in the room underlying much unhappiness.  Recourse to legal means to impose episcopal will smacks of Robert Maxwell.  All Christians, not least leaders, must arrest any slide into a culture in the Church that oppresses, rather than one underpinned by mutual respect and compassion, regaining confidence in that ministry pattern described by St Paul (|Romans 8.4-8)

The expression ‘lessons learned’ in a review of some poorly managed safeguarding episode, always fills the reader with a sense of déjà vu.  We ask ourselves the disrespectful question, how many more lessons learned reviews do we need before the Church gets the central point of how and why things can go so disastrously wrong in safeguarding events?

In every review of past safeguarding cases there are normally at least three components.   The first is the account of criminal sexual activity against a child or vulnerable adult.  Many of the cases, but not all, have ended up with criminal prosecutions and imprisonment for the perpetrators.  The second part is the reaction to the victim/survivor by relatives and people with professional responsibilities.  The third section is the examination of protocols and paper trails that help to reveal who did or knew what and when.  Of the three, the first is the most painful to read.  It is also the part of the review that provides the least scope for comment.  How many times can a commentator say, this is wicked/criminal behaviour?  The second section is worthy of comment.  If an individual has suffered and, for various reasons, they have not received a compassionate caring response, this is likely to have compounded the evil of the original malevolent act.  The third aspect, the failure of protocols and process, can be blamed on the common, but not necessarily wicked, weakness and sloppiness of those entrusted with the task of maintaining records and following procedures correctly.

When we come to examine the Independent Learning Lessons Case Review – Graham Gregory, we find all three aspects of a typical safeguarding report present.  The abuse and the failures of care are chronicled and then we have the astonishing carelessness in the preservation of records to illuminate these past events.  Girls and young women were abused over a thirty-year period by Graham Gregory.  Opportunities for checking this criminal behaviour were repeatedly missed.  Ray Galloway, the Reviewer, has produced a piece of work of high quality.  This in no way tries to avoid trenchant criticisms of protocol, management, along with a continuing failure to care for survivors in this bitterly shameful episode for the Church of England.   Abuse at the hands of Gregory took place in London and the North of England over his entire active ministry of 30 years.  Even at the time of his early retirement in 1995, the Church of England had still not identified Gregory as an active danger to vulnerable girls and young women, in spite the valiant attempts of his victims to speak to those in authority.

Of the three identified aspects of a Safeguarding Review, I intend to comment further only on the second, the response of authority figures.  Some of the accounts of the young girls trying to attract the attention of their own parents following the abuse are tragic, but it is the failure of church officers/dignitaries that I find even more shocking.  For the remainder of this commentary, I want to tell the story of three encounters between the young victims and professional outsiders.  In one case it was the meeting with a psychiatrist by a victim (by then an adult); in the other two cases it was a face-to-face meeting with a Church of England bishop soon after the abusive events.  Were things really so inept in the past, before the widespread acceptance in the Church of England that the Church had a real problem with sexual abuse among its clergy?   One sentence, repeated several times in the Review, states tellingly: No specific examples of Good Practice were identified on behalf of the Diocese of X.

One encounter that is recorded in the report is between a survivor known as Victim B occurred at a very late stage in the process after Gregory had been sentenced to prison in 2017.   Victim B had experienced abuse in the 1960s and already had been through the ordeal of testifying in court.  She then had to suffer the further humiliation of facing a psychiatrist who, no doubt working for an insurance company, was trying to claim that her abuse had left behind little harm.  The psychiatrist is not named, but such treatment by mental health professionals on behalf of the Church is recorded in other cases known to me.  Victim B told the Reviewer her story in these words.  It is shockingly awful…. it’s a travesty.   Once you have gone through the court and the man has gone to prison, you’ve gone over the awfulness so many times, blow me down, if they’re going to give you anything you have to go and say it all again to a psychiatrist, who’s desperately trying to find you have no symptoms at all, nothing at all, and they can give you as little money as possible.’

Victim F suffered a troubling and inappropriate intervention by the Diocesan bishop after her abuse at the hands of Gregory.  At that time, (in the 80s) she was still an 8-year-old child and, with her mother, in awe of such an important person.  The visit took place within a week of the abusive event.  In Victim F’s words, I remember him (the bishop) coming to see us and he said, ah well, that’s an awful thing to happen and he will have to go.  And will you promise not to tell anybody.  That was the worst thing, when you think about it now, him telling us not to say anything to anybody… I remember him saying that, I promise you, if you don’t say anything to anybody, he’ll be gone within six months.  Even though this conversation took place before church safeguarding protocols were set down, it is an appalling re-abuse of a vulnerable exploited child.  Gregory did move a year later but with a letter of commendation which did not mention anything about this episode of abuse.  The Diocese of Southwell thus had to receive a priest with a chequered past.  They were totally unaware of his history as a dangerous paedophile.

Another survivor, known as Victim G, also had a meeting with a Diocesan bishop in the 90s.  The latter felt it appropriate to invite Gregory to this meeting, as though a serious alleged case of sexual crime could be resolved by a process of reconciliation.  Fortunately, Victim G was supported by someone in the Diocese who was a highly experienced social worker.  Victim G read a prepared statement to Gregory that outlined how the abuse she had suffered had destroyed her childhood.  The bishop, who was present sat back in his chair with an air of detachment with the whole thing having, apparently, nothing to do with him.  Gregory’s response was a muttered I know, I get that now’.  The bishop himself having heard the statement then attempted to close the conversation down by outlining the complexities of a consistory court, and how difficult it would be to prove the offence.  Victim G was never offered the option of going to the police or even allowed to tell her story in full to the bishop.  Because her story had not been believed by the bishop, the whole process seemed to stall.  One feels that an act of gross pastoral failure had been perpetrated on this occasion.

The three vignettes that I have outlined from the 87-page Gregory Review may well have shocked my readers as much as they have shocked me.  One episcopal encounter dates back to the 80s and the other to the 90s.    The recent encounter with the psychiatrist took place within the past 10 years.  The biblical lament of ‘How long, O Lord, how long?’ comes to mind.  Can we eventually expect to see the end of crass insensitive treatment of survivors in the next ten years?  I have passed over the mislaying and probable destruction of records that the detailed report reveals.  This too probably reflects, on the part of someone, a callous disregard for the cause of survivors.  No one wants to hear about such episodes of cruel behaviour.  The failure of care for the abused, whether by management sloppiness or pastoral cruelty, is deeply wounding and damaging to the whole Church.  These are failures of integrity.  To misquote Scripture:  Where there is no integrity, the Church perishes!

When I was a very small child I was introduced to the idea of temptation and evil by a vivid, even frightening, picture in a book.  There was a small boy with two beings sitting on him, one on each shoulder.  The first was an angel and the other a small devilish creature, complete with tail and fork.  The reason for sitting on the shoulder was to give each ‘influencer’ ready access to the boy’s ears.  Temptation was being presented as a matter of whether or not we were listening and acting on what the devil was whispering to us.

However crude and simplistic this picture is, it is probably typical of the way that a Christian understanding of temptation was presented to children of my generation. In short, sin and evil were the consequence of individuals not listening to their consciences (the angel) but rather following a compulsion to go their own selfish way (the devil). With the wisdom of adulthood available to us now, we are able to see how such notions may still be distorting our thinking about evil. It is easy to believe that our involvement and responsibility for evil only occurs when we engage in personal lapses of conscience.  Our responsibility for any wider evil goes beyond that. There is such a thing, as we shall see, as corporate evil.  This can drag us into its grip and, in some way, we become part of it in varying degrees.  Our failure here is not necessarily the result of ignoring our individual consciences but may involve failures of caution, wisdom or imagination.  In short, there is nothing simple about our confrontations with evil.  Nor are there simple ways to establish our degree of culpability when we meet it in its capacity to damage, even destroy, our lives and the lives of others.

The idea that evil in the world is always the result of wrong decisions by individuals operating independently, is a notion deeply embedded in our thinking.  There are two important ways in which this crude initial picture is misleading and, at times, completely unhelpful.  When we examine the settings in which the temptation to do evil occurs, it quickly becomes apparent that there is a lot more going than a single conscience leading someone to wrong decisions or evil actions.  The culpability, the blame we attach to individuals fighting temptation will vary according to a whole variety of factors.  For example, we may make allowances for a child who has never received any moral guidance or ‘good-enough’ parenting to help them understand ideas of good and evil.  Evil deeds are sometimes perpetrated in the context of a desperate need simply to survive.  We should always be prepared to examine the influences on an individual who has chosen in some way to go over to the dark side.   The influence of a group, a dysfunctional family or a gang can be very strong, even irresistible.  Such evil pressures do not excuse the individual act, but they certainly help us to understand it. Evil can descend on to an individual because of the geographical area in which an offender has been brought up, or the social circles they move in.  One question in such a situation has to be this.  Where do we locate the evil?  Is it only in the individual concerned or can we find it somewhere else, within a group that has seduced a vulnerable individual into its ranks? We soon discover that there is something we call corporate or social evil.  This form of evil is very hard to pin down or say where precisely it is to be found.  As with any other form of evil, it must be resisted and opposed.   But social evils are far harder to deal with and it may take a generation or two to root out particular evils, like racial prejudice, misogyny or homophobia.

Within every corporate organisation or institution there are certain predictable forces or dynamics at work.  Many of these will be morally neutral.  The desire by a firm to create a product which is valuable to society, at the same time making a profit to reward investors, is compatible with wholesome ethical behaviour.  The management of such a manufacturing company will also be guided by one overriding dynamic, the need to preserve itself in the present and have the strength to survive into the future.  Other organisations, like the Church, will also have this same fundamental drive for self-preservation and expansion.  In pursuit of this aim, they will use a variety of methods to protect themselves from any threats to their existence.  We see the same fundamental self-preserving dynamic in the world of nature, from the largest animals down to the smallest cellular creature.  Whatever an animal does to protect itself and reproduce itself is not judged by standards of right and wrong.  The task of self-preservation within the Church is also normally a neutral act.  As with every organisation, the Church has the right to defend itself in appropriate ways.  The deployment of lawyers, publicity experts and reputation polishers can all relate to the activity of a Church when it is in a justified self-protective mode. There is, however, a line that is crossed when ethical self-preservation methods become immoral and unethical.  The Church’s desire for survival can sometimes negate its ethical standards and claims of total integrity.  We note here two examples of unethical behaviour can be given from the reported catalogue of safeguarding failures of the last ten years.  Church reputation managers may decide that a person persistently asking awkward question about decisions made in the past needs to be forcibly side-lined and their reputation challenged.  The ‘dirty tricks’ department swings into operation in an effort to isolate and pressurise the individual concerned.  When innuendo, lies and rumour spreading are employed against an individual in an effort to undermine him/her, we are clearly describing an institution moving to immoral evil behaviour.

 Among other examples of immoral behaviour in an institution such as the church, is in the use of silence.  This weapon of silence, used unethically, can operate in a variety of ways.  Among the examples are the letters and emails that are sent to the church authorities from abuse survivors, but which go unanswered.  Any refusal to answer legitimate questions about the past can be seen as involving a serious unethical treatment of a complainant.  Another use of silence is when an order goes out from the centre forbidding contact or any sharing of legitimate information with suffering abuse survivors.  The whole institution gets into a situation of moral paralysis as this clamming up process shuts down the Christian virtues of love, openness and mutuality.  They are replaced by a claustrophobic secrecy which excludes all but the elite powerbrokers at the centre.  The Church is supposed to stand for justice and fair play.  Neither of these are in evidence when church authority uses its power to control people and information by simply shutting everyone else out through the use of silence.

When evil acts are committed by individuals within an organisation, the effect of these actions has a tendency to spread right across the organisation, corrupting the entire body.  This can happen even if the perpetrator is speedily identified and punished.  All the individual members of the institution may be innocent of any of this evil but, somehow, the sense of corporate shame can percolate right across the organisation.  When we try to describe this corporate sense of shame, it is very hard to locate it or suggest ways to remove it.  In such a situation we can see how inappropriate the crude picture of evil that we started with has become.  There has been no listening to a private angel or devil, but evil has still invaded the lives of all the members of the institution simply by virtue of their membership.  Individual innocence does not protect them from the guilt and shame which attaches itself to the whole institution and the members of it.

I had wanted to go further and discuss the way that institutions, even nations, have the power to incubate and propagate destructive evil within their cultures.  These cultures can actively suck otherwise innocent people into their terrifying ideologies and ways of behaviour.  Ordinary people can find themselves spouting the most appalling hatreds which reflect the prevailing political or ideological climate around them.  Trump’s America has corrupted many millions of people with its poisonous rhetoric, aping similar dynamics prevalent in Hitler’s Germany.  The important point that is being made here is to state that evil can pervade institutions and societies in a variety of ways.   Evil works its nefarious purposes, not by tempting individuals one by one, but by contaminating entire institutions and organisations, creating norms of thought and behaviour that are normally considered repellent and evil.   In our day, the smiling face of corruption is not absent even from our churches.  It takes the hard work of people of goodwill and Christian insight and integrity to identify and call out such evil that may be going on even in our own trusted institutions.  That was the task of the prophets of the Old Testament, to challenge institutional evil and assumptions. It behoves all of us who have a sensitivity to the presence of evil to name it and to challenge those who remain insensitive to its power.  That power, especially in its corporate form, can harm and corrupt the thinking of so many.  To challenge corporate evil means that we have to be thinking in quite different ways from the devil on the shoulder imagery.  Personal evil still exists, but far more insidious is the evil that takes root in the institutions of our land.  This, as we are leaning to our cost, includes the churches that were once believed always to be the main bastions against the devil’s power.  That seems to be true no longer.