by ‘Graham’

It is almost exactly ten years since I first disclosed the abuse by John Smyth QC in the 1970s and 1980s. It is also coming up to five years since the Channel 4 programmes that first brought this to the public’s attention. A Review was announced by the Lead Bishop for Safeguarding on 13 August 2018, the day after John Smyth died. It is now 28 months after that Lessons Learned Review was announced as starting.

And I am tired. I cannot put this episode behind me until the story is told, and someone is held to account. I long for it to “be over”, if that can ever be the case. I have given evidence to six investigations/Reviews. I am exhausted.

Enough is in the public domain, is known. There have now been four published Reviews (if you include Scripture Union, the Titus Timeline, the Titus Cultural Review and the Advance Report). There have been television programmes, many, many articles and now a book. The book is extraordinary in its detail and research (those who pick up on grammar or apostrophes deflect from the full horror of its story). Complaints have been made, investigations launched and Keith Makin has a mechanism for passing concerning behaviour to The National Safeguarding Team (NST) under Clause 3.1.6 of his Terms of Reference. Yet, silence. Nothing has happened to anyone (bar, briefly, George Carey) in five years.

Let us start with NST. I was staggered and depressed in 2018 to discover that there was no Core Group on John Smyth. It was disbanded the day he died. There was no continuing investigation, no Case Officer with a file on John Smyth. I will put on record: I have never been formally interviewed by the Diocese of Ely (where I went first) or by the NST. No one from the Church of England has asked me to tell my story. There is little knowledge within NST of the full horror of the abuse.

So, what of referrals under Clause 3.1.6 which refers to “allegations or failures to respond properly” which must be “brought to the immediate attention of the ……Director of Safeguarding..”?  We are told referrals have been made. George Carey, probably a very peripheral figure, was immediately suspended, though this was quickly reversed. No other person referred under 3.1.6 has, to the best of my knowledge, been subject to any kind of censure or sanction.

This was brought to the attention of Archbishop Justin in the one, short, meeting that he has deigned to give the victims of John Smyth in the last five years. His statement, in May 2021, immediately afterwards was very clear: “These victims are rightly concerned that no one appears to have faced any sanction yet, when it made clear that a number of Christians, clergy and lay, were made aware of the abuse in the 1980s and many learned in subsequent years….I have made it clear that the National Safeguarding Team will investigate every clergy person or others within its scope of whom they have been informed who knew and failed to disclose the abuse”. While this has apparently now got two case workers investigating, after seven months, I have still not been asked for the list I showed the Archbishop briefly on the screen. And no one has faced any sanction that we are aware.

Then, other opportunities. A vast amount of new information was provided in the Andrew Graystone’s book, Bleeding for Jesus. For those suspicious of a journalist, who want other sources, there has been a vast amount of detail published in the four reviews/reports mentioned above. Any one of those might have triggered further investigation and action. Yet, they pass by, soon forgotten and the victims see no response. I question whether NST have even read those reports in forensic detail?

What about the Makin Review? First, we may not see this until the end of 2022, nearly six years after the Channel 4 broadcast. But I have asked repeatedly of the Director of Safeguarding whether these are not two different processes. Keith Makin has no powers under the Church of England disciplinary processes. He can make discoveries, and pass them to NST, but he remains an independent reviewer, with no powers. It is for NST and the Church of England to initiate the necessary processes, investigate, and apply the appropriate sanctions. So, whenever I am told “wait for the Makin Review”, I ask whether there is not ample already in the public domain to initiate proceedings?

Where do I see blame? Who do victims want held to account? We must not forget, our abuser is dead. He alone is responsible for the abuse we suffered. However, he could and should have been stopped at many points in this story. And all who had some degree of knowledge, but stood by as “Observers”, in the language of abuse, sit on the spectrum of fault.

Most culpable are those who had full knowledge of the abuse after the Ruston Report in 1982. They knew the horror. Anyone reading the Ruston Report knew of blood, nappies and criminality. Some of this group are alive. And untouched. David and Jonathan Fletcher. Roger Combes. They are the most culpable for failing to stop John Smyth’s abuse of African kids for the next thirty five years.

There are then those who had some degree of knowledge in the 1980s, even if it is not claimed they saw the Ruston Report. Dean David Connor, Archbishop Justin Welby, who has only recently admitted he was tipped off about Smyth in 1983. Did they have any responsibility to check what Smyth was doing next? To keep an eye on him ? Did any of this group, in the subsequent years ask themselves what Smyth was up to, or hear that he was running camps again? A child died. Repeat that: Guide Nyachuru died, when many knew what Smyth was capable of, and was in fact doing.

In the mid 1990s, there was an enormous, missed opportunity. The activities of Smyth were again brought to many people’s attention. It was not just the Bulawayo Pastors and lawyer David Coltart who doggedly tried to shut down Smyth, and then to prosecute him. They referred to the UK for details of the Ruston Report and were told, by David Fletcher, and victims such as Alasdair Paine, exactly what had happened around the Ruston Report. The UK fundraising trust, the Zambesi Trust, imploded, but quickly found new Trustees and financial backers. Even after meetings in Zimbabwe  with those concerned, Jamie Colman continued to support John Smyth. And still, no one in the UK was willing to name Smyth, “out” him and stop his practices using the media. The Work was too valuable.

In 2012, I came forward. Yet, rather than investigate, and stop John Smyth, I was met by denial and distancing by Titus Trust. They refused any offer of counselling, and the two Titus reports lay out how they denied responsibility. But it was not just Titus. In 2013, my disclosure in the Diocese of Ely was passed to NST and Lambeth. By autumn 2013, five Bishops and one Archbishop had notice, and significant detail about the beatings. Yet still Smyth was not stopped. Are they not culpable ? Do they not have some moral and legal responsibility towards those abused in Cape Town after 2013?

Then, subsequent to the Channel 4 programme? What of those who have lied? Or told untruths? What of those who in media interviews have laid a smokescreen of “he wasn’t Anglican”: he patently was. What of those now claiming amnesia, or claiming that they “knew about beatings, but did not realise how bad it was”. In the ConEvo world of Iwerne and Titus I have had only two people offer full, open, heart-rending sorrow and lament. I am blanked by the rest.

So, in the spectrum of knowledge and fault, there are many, many people. Their involvement, their roles are known. Yet, no one has been held to account.

NST, Church of England, what more do you want?

On Sunday 11th July, General Synod was given first sight of a new complaints system to replace the Clergy Discipline Measure (2003). A reform of this CDM legislation has been a long time in the in-box of the Church of England. The old measure has caused (and continues to cause) a great deal of unhappiness, even trauma, to those who have been caught up in its tentacles.

The Church Times of July 2 helpfully summarised four main features of this new Clergy Conduct Measure.  First of all, it is going to ensure that professional support is available for the accused, as well as survivors and victims. Secondly, it will ensure that cases are dealt with within a reasonable period of time. Thirdly, there will be independent oversight of the disciplinary functions and professional training for those administering any aspect of the measure. Finally, there will be proper resourcing of diocesan and national bodies to ensure that complaints and allegations of misconduct are dealt with properly.  This legislation cannot come too soon for some who face accusations of unprofessional or improper conduct of some kind.  

The case that I have had brought to my attention does not involve a clergy person but a layman.  From what I can gather, the protocols required in setting up this particular case are close to identical to those that are used for the clergy.  I have had to gloss over many of the details to preserve the anonymity of the case.  I do, however, believe that what I can reveal illustrates clearly how failings in each one of these four areas at present contributes to what seems to be a desperate miscarriage of justice.

What I can reveal of the case allows me to say that it concerns an allegation of inappropriate sexual touch of a child chorister at a large church in England.  The accused, a layperson we shall call Kenneth, is in his mid-70s and has faithfully served the church in various ways for most of his adult life. Why am I inclined to believe his protestations of innocence?  The main reason is that the story as told by the chorister and the mother is full of holes and contradictions. 

These reveal themselves in their testimony and it is hard to see how the story could be true. There is also evidence of some members of the Core Group having strong pre-existing bias against Kenneth.

Kenneth, first heard about the allegation from police in March 2020.  The police did not show any inclination to pursue the matter themselves, so the case reverted back to the Church’s processes. The allegation was difficult to respond to as there were a number of inconsistencies in the allegations. For example, the child could not remember whether the offence had taken place in a crowded vestry or in a one-to-one situation. 

The church concerned has a very strict chaperoning system and the child’s mother is one of a number of volunteer chaperones. When asked to explain how her child was not being watched during the alleged assault, the mother explained that she was temporarily out of the room dealing with another matter. The allegation is of sexual touching on three occasions.  The mother has not explained whether she was outside dealing with another matter on all three occasions.  The other glaring inconsistency is the fact that no precise date has been given for any of the offences.  It has not been possible to establish clearly a time when the chorister and Kenneth were together in such a way that an offence could have taken place.  There are other forms of evidence available-church registers and potential witnesses, but no one has felt able to pursue these with energy.

As soon as the allegation was made, a Core Group was set up by the local diocese to manage the situation.  Kenneth was automatically suspended from all duties and banned from attendance at his church and unable to attend any other Christian church without that church being notified of the allegation.  The Core Group consisted of a fairly random group of people, including one who is a Facebook friend of the chorister’s mother. It is noticeable that no one in the Group appears to have any legal training.

From looking at the papers that Kenneth has provided me, it seems that little has been done to ask the common-sense questions about the situation, including establishing exactly when and where any offence might actually have happened.  Kenneth was abroad for some of the period when the claimed offence might have taken place. The existing protocol for a situation of this kind seems to allow for delays, so nothing is done with any sense of urgency.

One particular massive misunderstanding seems to have taken root in the Group and this makes it difficult for them even to consider the possibility of Kenneth’s innocence.  The Core Group apparently insists that its role is not to seek the truth but to believe the child.  Apparently one of the Core Group has claimed (without checking) that this principle is set out in the parish safeguarding manual.  The Facebook friend of the chorister’s mother is also a fan of the child for his/her skill in singing. This would appear to conflict with Lord Carlisle’s principle, that scrupulous impartiality should be observed by all members of a core group investigating an alleged offence.  This one member of a core croup, with a strong partiality towards the victim, at the same time representing the strongly negative attitude of the mother against Kenneth, is easily able to disrupt any sense of neutrality in the Group. One potential witness, a chorister chaperone, who might have spoken on behalf of Kenneth, has been silenced on the grounds that she has ‘history’ with the mother.  This potential witness was one of the chaperones who were on duty on the Sundays when the alleged offence could have taken place.

When Kenneth rang me up a few months ago, we discussed the allegation and he told me that an independent investigator was to be brought in.  When I heard about this intervention, I expressed the hope that a true outsider would see the anomalies of the case and bring a more forensic approach to establishing the facts.  He would be able to discern the likely plausibility of the child’s story, particularly the discrepancies over dates and details. I also expressed the hope that the truth would be established far quicker if mother and child were interviewed separately.  This has apparently not happened so far. The child is now 15 years old so should be able to speak for him/herself.  I told Kenneth that, from where I stood, the influence of the mother over the child also needed to be understood.   This would help provide a better perspective on the overall dynamics of the situation.

The independent investigator came and went, but afterwards it was discovered that according to his terms of reference, he was only required to investigate ‘the methods of the way the allegation was dealt with and not the allegation itself’.  In other words, he was not being asked to give any opinion about the plausibility of the accusation.  Meanwhile his report is embargoed so that neither Kenneth nor his solicitor can see what was discovered.  The 16 page report in a redacted form was available for just two hours to be viewed, but not received in hard copy.  We are now still in a limbo situation 20 months after the original accusation was made in March 2020. In all that time no one has stepped forward seeking to establish what might or might not have happened and whether the evidence to support the child’s claim is convincing.  The overwhelming assumption of the Core Group seems to follow the principle, ‘the child must be believed’.  Failure to do this is thought to be re-abusive.  What a sad misunderstanding of the principles of safeguarding and how little it serves justice.  Assuming the CDM revision is going to apply to cases involving laity, the reforms cannot come soon enough.

This morning, Wednesday 8^th, the safeguarding organisation, thirtyone:eight, published its review on the culture of the Titus Trust. It is a lengthy document and, given the fact that we have only had a few hours since it was published, I can be forgiven for not attempting to comment on the entire review.  Rather, I focus on certain points within it. The word that came to me as I was reading the early sections, was the word claustrophobia.  This might sum my overall feeling of what the report reveals of the past and present culture of Titus Trust and its previous incarnation as the Iwerne Trust. It is not a word that appears anywhere in the review, but it seems to describe well what many may have had to suffer through membership of this organisation. The overall theological and social culture of Titus is not one that is obviously attractive to the outsider. 

A single sentence (p 43) sums up the sameness and suffocating environment that I would have found painful if I had ever been a participant at a Titus camp. ‘Leaders and staff are encouraged to have the same theology, which is reinforced by the churches and church culture the Trust is linked with’.  Such a statement suggests to me a version of Christianity which, because it is fixed, is unlikely to have much in the way of flexibility or adaptability when problems are encountered. Members of staff are required to ‘share the Conservative Evangelical convictions of the Titus Trust, as set out in the Trust’s Doctrinal Basis.’  The application form for a post in the organisation has twelve questions to be answered about their Christian commitment.  In some ways I have no problem with someone choosing to believe that Jonah spent time inside a whale and that Bible is united in its testimony to condemn same-sex marriage.  I am however disturbed to think that impressionable young people of 16+ are being required to assert that no one can become a Christian unless they hold to such beliefs.   Apparently according to the reviewers, the word ‘sound’ still circulates widely in Titus circles.  It is described as the ‘particular theology of camp.’  Only if you are sound can you be entrusted with leading prayers in camp or seeking any kind of responsibility. Talks, even by junior leaders of experience, have to be monitored and assessed for their soundness, in case some heterodox opinion has been allowed to creep in.  As with the thirtyone:eight review of Emmanuel Wimbledon and the ministry of Jonathan Fletcher, a strong sense of fear seems to be present in this task of identifying what is sound and what is beyond acceptable belief. The fear of saying or believing the wrong thing must constantly haunt these young people, whether teachers or learners.

The review gives some space to what happens to Titus campers who fall foul of the strict requirement for doctrinal conformity of belief. Individuals are first exhorted to submit to leaders or be declared as ‘unsound’.  To have this single word used against you is the equivalent to an act of ostracism.  The individual is deemed to have ‘gone cold’ or ‘moved on from the gospel’. In a social grouping with the intensity of the Titus camps, this kind of exclusion tactic must be felt with terrifying intensity.  Most of those who have questions, especially those who are discriminated against by the culture for simply being women, will simply give up the struggle to interrogate authority.  The review does acknowledge that this vexed question of women in leadership has been in part addressed by Titus in recent years.  Women are now entering some positions of responsibility, though it seems that the leadership has not yet shed its fundamental complementarian stance. 

The Titus personnel who become most fully enmeshed in what Bash, the founder called the ‘deep work’ are those who are working up the ranks to become camp leaders.  For many, the recognition of achieving this rank or ministry is a path to leadership in the wider church beyond the camps.  These individuals are selected for year-round training at courses organised by the Proclamation Trust, Cornhill or Wycliffe Hall.  These may occur over weekends or the New Year.  The camps and the extra trainings offered become an all-year activity, but those involved see it as part of a vocational offering to God.  Some of those giving sacrificial amounts of time to the cause of evangelising young people do suffer exhaustion, but there seems little support being offered by those in charge. 

In the Titus Camps, the climax of camp work undertaken by the junior leaders, is the ‘camp chat’ with the young campers.  This involves asking deeply personal questions connected to the faith of their young charges.  The hope is that camper is ready to make some personal commitment to Christ at a climax point in the week. Then they are required to accept an ongoing relationship of mentoring from the junior leader.  This mentoring relationship being sought, may be between two individuals with perhaps a bare five year difference in age.  It is not free of potential problems, not least those concerned with safeguarding.  A further problem is that the young charge might regard this mentoring relationship as one more attaching him/her to the Titus Trust, rather than to God. In one memorable phrase, someone interpreted the process as being initiated into a ‘Titus bubble’.

The year-round oversight of successfully converted Titus campers was felt by some to be an attempt to turn individuals into Titus ‘types’.  They were expected to behave in a certain way, dress in a particular way, go to the right (approved) churches and attend the right conferences.  They were also expected to smile a lot and always be happy.  This attempt to make Titus alumni conform to a type eventually palled for some, and was felt to be a drag of the spontaneity and creativity of the individual.  The culture and authority of the camp was still trying to keep a tight grip on the convert.  If one wanted to swap a church for another one, one’s soundness would be called into question.  Charismatic churches were, typically, no-go areas for Titus people.  Rules over marriage were in force and future brides were expected to come under the covering of Titus rules.  One individual who broke away from the tentacles of Titus wrote as follows.  ‘As I have removed myself from the culture, I have come to realise more and more the freedom of not being part of it…. That I don’t need to change myself to be who they want me to be’.  Another wrote ‘it wasn’t a place where people are people… I’m really valuable and everybody has that.’

The thirtyone:eight review of the culture of the Titus Trust of course says in its 148 pages many valuable and interesting things. While the review is trying to help Titus to reform its practices and culture, I have, perhaps unfairly, focussed on the description or aspects of its culture that I find the most alarming. It is there that I see the fostering of a culture of coercion and conformity that is far closer to the cults than anything resembling the glorious liberty of the sons of God. That to me is the real challenge for Titus. Are they able to foster in their organisation a sense of freedom rather than appearing to stifle it in the name of an orthodoxy and conformity which has lost all sense of joy and newness?

The recent publication by the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC) of study material, Church Cultures, Review Questions, is to help its constituency understand its own church ‘culture’. This is a significant event. Some of us who are not linked to this organisation are watching this development with interest. One question that has been raised is about the timing of CEEC publications. The last time that the CEEC produced important material to be studied by its members, was when it produced a video on marriage, The Beautiful Story.  This appeared around the time of the publication of the central Church’s study document, Living in Love and Faith. We discussed at the time in a blog post how all the work of producing this slick and expensive video was being done in the months before the publication of the main discussion document produced by the national Church. In other words, CEEC had apparently already made up its mind about what it thought about the as yet unpublished material on the vexed topic of LGTB+ inclusion by the Church. In summary, the CEEC video was saying that no discussion on the topic was necessary. The Bible, as interpreted by the leaders of its organisation, left no room for doubt for any stance except that adopted by its leaders. This stated that sexual bonding for faithful Christians can only ever take place within the context of heterosexual marriage.

The current CEEC video and study material on church culture may perhaps be seen as a further attempt to pre-empt a new, as yet unpublished, critical document, originating from outside its network.  This is, for quite different reasons, likely to unsettle some Christians, especially those within the CEEC network.  This new collection of CEEC study material may well have been produced as a pre-emptive response to a 31:8 document on the culture of the Titus Trust that is due to appear on December 8^th. Any criticisms of Titus are likely to be felt by the wider constituency of like-minded evangelicals who have supported Titus and the Iwerne camps over decades.  This includes the entire ReNew grouping under the effective control of centres like St Helen’s Bishopsgate. This new report is a follow-up to one which appeared a year ago, commissioned by, but strongly critical of, Emmanuel Church Wimbledon (ECW).  The earlier report was also highly critical of its former Vicar, Jonathan Fletcher. This first report sent a shock wave right through the entire constituency of conservative evangelical churches across the country.

The second report about the Titus Trust, being commissioned from the organisation 31:8, is to address the issue of culture. It will be trying to answer such questions as: How much was the existing culture of Titus an issue in the abuses that took place in and around the Iwerne camps? By publishing their own new material in Review Questions on this topic of culture, the CEEC may be hoping to demonstrate that they fully understand the importance of this issue within their constituency.  They are also prepared to admit a link between that culture and the power abuses of various kinds that have appeared at various times. This study material is, in other words, an attempt to demonstrate to their members and to the wider Church that the authorities in CEEC are already working to mitigate the abuses of the past through a fresh understanding of how abuse came to be. In short, they want to regain trust and be relied on to exercise more open and honest styles of leadership. They want the rest of us to believe that the culture that incubated John Smyth and Jonathan Fletcher can never again take hold. The question for this blog post is to assess whether the committee working for the CEEC really does show a proper understanding of its own culture.  Do they really have any insight as to whether beliefs and behaviours common in evangelical circles can create harm to its constituent members?

We should begin with some appreciation for the fact that an institution like the CEEC is prepared to scrutinise weaknesses which have led to scandal and shame.  Any reader of Graystone’s book, Bleeding for Jesus, or the 31:8 report on ECW is left with little doubt of dysfunctional processes at work in the dynamics of leadership within some conservative churches such as those in CEEC.  One wonders how much of these unhealthy processes are understood by people in the pew. In the first section of the new CEEC study material with the heading, Character and Accountability, there is some discussion of the problems of idolisation of leaders and failure of accountability by these same leaders. There is however little sense that these discussions among evangelically acculturated Christians is going to make a dent in the unhealthy adulation of leaders identified in the earlier 31:8 report.    That report suggested that only a complete ‘clear-out’ would achieve the necessary transformation of the leadership cultures of the churches under scrutiny.

The second theme for the parish group discussion is the theme of Diversity and Difference. Neither of these two words are likely to be common within the rhetoric of preachers represented by the CEEC tradition. The constant appeal to the clear teaching of Scripture suggests that diversity and difference are not going to be readily understood in conservative congregations, let alone encouraged.  Are we here witnessing the equivalent of a form of political correctness in a conservative setting?  Let us use these fashionable words so that people will think we are open and accommodating to people who do not think as we do.  Once the individual joins us, then we can make absolutely clear that sameness, conformity and authority are really the values we follow.  We cannot ever in practice be seen to tolerate or accommodate those who disagree with us.  Our reading of Scripture makes this impossible.

The third discussion theme is around safeguarding and protection of the vulnerable. There is little to object to in this section. As far as it goes, it is an attempt to engender respect for safeguarding processes at every level.  But there is one enormous glaring omission for anyone who looks in from outside the CEEC network.  The omission is a complete and utter inability to engage with the enormity of past failures.  The CEEC constituency are of course not alone in lionising abusive leaders or allowing individuals to escape justice in abuse cases over decades.  But it is hard to understand how the Fletcher/Smyth scandals, both of which were incubated in circles close to the CEEC, does not seem to enter the awareness of the writers, nor provoke abject remorse and shame.

The final section on power and decision-making again is good in what it says but it completely fails to engage with the way that the culture of leadership in any organisation can become corrupted by the personality flaws of those who rise to the top. I’ve spoken elsewhere about institutional narcissism. I have tried there to describe the way that some individuals obtain their sense of self-importance by clawing their way up to obtain a position within a hierarchy. We find so many of the typical manifestations of classic narcissistic traits in large successful evangelical churches. There we find elitism, messianism, celebrity worship and the addictive enjoyment of power among many prominent leaders in this tradition. The problem is not just the existence of these destructive personality flaws within this culture.  It is the inability of anyone operating within these networks either to challenge this behaviour or even understand it.  A first year psychology student would have had the necessary insight to see what was going on at the Crowded House or Emmanuel Wimbledon.  The problem has been that the culture of such institutions has shut out such basic insights by the corporate values of denial, deflect and defend. 

We look forward to the new 3!:8 report on the culture of the Titus Trust with the hope that it will cause a new soul-searching within the wider evangelical constituency.  The CEEC study material and the questions on church culture asks many of the right things but the material is notable for what it leaves out. It sometimes hints at the need for deep honest appraisal but draws back each time from any real criticism of the culture of the CEEC and its leaders.  Without a root and branch self-appraisal, the CEEC and its constituent churches will continue to stagger on with the same complacency that was shown in the video The Beautiful Story of a year ago.  The Church of England needs its evangelical members but the evident power games and dysfunction that have been revealed over the past few years with safeguarding issues, have severely weakened that witness. 

During the months and years of my trying to understand the Christ Church College dispute with its Dean, Martyn Percy, the material needing to be absorbed, has grown exponentially. There was once a time when one could easily keep on top of the available public material, but I fear that point has passed for all but a very few enthusiasts for the case. When you add in the Private Eye contributions, the letters and comments from alumni and others, you are faced with a massive amount of material. One day the whole affair will be properly written up for a D Phil thesis and all the numerous threads joined together. The villains and the heroes of the story will be identified, and there will be a measured assessment of the real motives and priorities of those who expended enormous amounts of energy in the effort to topple the Dean. 

Surviving Church has strayed, over a period, from being a blog which chiefly focused on teaching aspects of the Christian tradition to mainly commentary work. These commentary pieces try to illuminate for my readers some of the current issues in the Church that are newsworthy and topical. My qualification for doing this is not secret access to confidential information, but simply the readiness to attempt to interpret what seems to be going on according to available evidence.  The Christ Church saga is one of the stories that I have been following over two or three years. The numbers of my readers seem to shoot up when I offer my opinions on this story. The material to be reflected upon is now so extensive that it seems that there is always at least one facet of the story that needs comment or further scrutiny at any one time.

The recent news from Christ Church is centred not on the College itself, but on the Charity Commission (CC). As I pointed out some months ago, the CC potentially has real power to change the situation for the College and the Dean. As every trustee of a charity knows, charitable status, with all its tax benefits, has to be earned.  Each charity in Britain has a separate number and has to produce a published statement of their charitable purposes on a regular basis.  If a charity deviates from these charitable purposes, the CC can come in with the legal power to take charge by sacking trustees or whatever else is necessary. A large Church in London was taken to task around three years ago when large sums of money were found to have disappeared into property speculation. I don’t remember the details, but the CC became involved and was able to take decisive action. The number of occasions where there is something to be done like sacking trustees or closing bank accounts, is relatively few. The CC human and administrative resources are simply not sufficient for effective oversight of every charity in the country. The Commission, however, seems to operate decisively when scandals are high-profile, and the problems of a charity have attracted public attention.  Christ Church obviously falls into that category. Once such attention from the CC has been attracted, a casefile is opened, an investigative team gathered, and the CC pursues the problem with energy until all the outstanding issues are resolved.

The Church Times of November 26th and a blog post by Martin Sewell of the same date, refer to a letter sent by the CC on November 4^th to the Christ Church Governors. This letter from Helen Earner, Director of regulatory services, does not speak soft words. It ‘requests a long list of background information about the dispute. This includes Governing Body minutes from June 2018 onwards covering the salaries-board dispute …. the money that has been spent on the action hitherto, including payments for legal advice and public relations support and details of the mediation process and why it was halted.’ David Lamming in a blog contribution on Thinking Anglicans, lists various other detailed items being demanded, including minutes of Governors’ meetings where expenditure was authorised.

This recent letter suggests that the CC is fully up to date with what has been going on in the dispute. The answers required to this latest letter will have to be of standard far higher than any platitudes offered by public relations advisers. All the way through this ongoing saga, we have often felt as though truth has been difficult to establish because the College propaganda machine has been cranked up to suggest that the Dean is a wicked dangerous person.  The point at which this process reached a peak was when a list of inhibitions against the Dean were made known to the Press.  This was at the time when a CDM was brought against the Dean in November 2020. As part of the CDM, a risk assessment for the Dean was produced, and this claimed, in summary, that he posed a significant danger to everybody in the college.  The Dean was forbidden to meet anyone in the College unchaperoned, and he was also forbidden to enter the Cathedral. The author of this risk assessment was never revealed. Two suggested authors denied any hand in it.  Clearly, whatever the origin of what I referred to at the time as the ‘dodgy risk assessment’, the existence of such a document suggests underhand behaviour among those who wished to do the Dean harm. A member of the chapter was also heard by members of the cathedral congregation to compare Percy with Peter Ball. It is stories and rumours like this, as well as minutes of meetings and published emails, that will receive forensic scrutiny by the CC. This will enable them in due course to produce an accurate narrative which has integrity and truth.

The requested access by the CC regulator to the minutes of the Governing Body, also mentioned a need to see copies of the emails that Sir Andrew Smith had sight of for his 2018 Tribunal (when the Dean was exonerated). These were published in the appendix to his judgement. Some of the comments in the emails possessed a measure of vitriol who would make it very hard to make a claim that the authors were dedicated only to the pursuit of objective justice. Evidence of such poison against an individual, whether caused by professional jealousy or irrational resentment towards a challenger to the status quo, does not make for a good look. All such documents need to be re-examined by an objective third party like the CC. Given the fact that charitable activities are defined both in law and in the common-sense judgment of ordinary people, it is hard to see how the behaviour of Percy’s enemies will pass the ‘smell-test’ when their words are examined in detail.

Martin Sewell’s latest piece in the blog Archbishop Cranmer https://archbishopcranmer.com/ gives a lot of weight to the issue of the importance of justice being seen to be done. He reminds us of a letter to the Times in March 2020 from Baroness Stowell, then Chair of the CC. She stated that powerful wealthy institutions like Christ Church must earn their status as charitable entities. Public perception of what is going on in Oxford is important. Sewell observes that if the processes involved in setting up a second Tribunal are not seen to be fair, then that will tell against them. In short, the CC may quickly intervene if the process looks like a kangaroo court. One factor, which may favour Percy, is that, according to Sewell, it is going to be extremely hard to find members of the tribunal who have no conflicts of interest. The Church of England has made recent statements about the importance of observing this strictly in all legal cases.  The Sewell article goes into this point at some depth. If the College found itself unable to suggest suitably qualified tribunal members, it would lose control of the process. The previous tribunal of 2018 under Andrew Smith ruled in Percy’s favour on all 27 points and swallowed a huge tranche of charitable funds.  The first and second CDMs against the Dean have failed. Is Christ Church really going to able to risk yet another quasi-judicial process under the scrutiny of the CC?  The cost of failure this second time for the College may lead to substantial personal financial liabilities for the individual members of the Governing Body.

The indications that the Charity Commission is taking a detailed interest in the Percy affair at Christ Church is likely to be good news for all of us who have supported Percy over his years of persecution and harassment.  He has survived stress and breakdown with the help of family, supporters, and hundreds of Christ Church alumni. Meanwhile around him, the professional reputation and integrity of various people in the Church and the College is being scrutinised as never before. Vast sums of money have been spent on reputation polishers and lawyers, but this will not protect them if wrongdoing is uncovered.  The healthy functioning of two important institutions, the Oxford Diocese and Christ Church College has been weakened. If we are right that a body, the CC, which has clout and a deep desire for justice is now fully on board in the defence of truth, then we might be coming close to the final chapter in this story.  Let us hope so. Sewell’s article and the authoritative tone of Helen Earner of the CC certainly point in this direction.

In the past few days, a fundamentalist preacher in the States, Pastor Burnett Robinson, has resigned as the Senior Pastor of the Grand Concourse Seventh-day Adventist Church in New York. Robinson got into trouble for saying that it is OK for a Christian man to rape his wife.  Even though Robinson’s denomination is a somewhat heterodox fringe group, this interpretation of scripture is probably not far off that preached by other bible-believing congregations in the States. Once you have bought into the idea that the Bible is to be relied on to speak authoritatively on the topic of matrimonial relations, you might well come up with an abusive interpretation of the words: The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband (1 Cor 7.) The other much quoted passage about male-female relationships is the one that speaks of wives submitting to their husbands. However, it has to be quickly pointed out that these interpretations can only be maintained if these passages are quoted omitting their context. The Corinthians passage contains these further words: Equally the husband cannot claim his body as his own, it is his wife’s. The attempt to encourage what is essentially a criminal act, by quoting half of a verse, is quickly seen as invalid and outrageous. Any Christian can see that manipulation of the meaning of a scriptural passage in this way is completely out of order. It has absolutely nothing to do with any debate about the authority of scripture for Christians. An incomplete quotation of any passage, whether from the Bible or from literature generally, will frequently distort meaning.  Such distortion has to be resisted regardless of one’s background theology.  What Pastor Robinson has attempted to do is to spin a false reading of the text and this is effectively an attack on integrity and truth.  Can the perpetrator of such a lie ever be trusted again?

The word that has crept into the discussion of this biblical quotation is the word context. Clearly the meaning of the Corinthians passage changes significantly when It is completed by the second half of the verse.  We have other insights to gain from studying this verse segment by placing it not only in the context of the whole verse, but also in the setting of Paul’s overall ideas on women.  These seem to have varied over his writing career. What he had to say about women seems to change, possibly according to his mood. In one key passage he lyrically describes the differences between the sexes as having no importance. On other occasions his approach is legalistic, some would say oppressive. Because of this variety of approaches to women, we cannot say that Paul had a consistent attitude.  Thus, we cannot just take any single passage and build an entire edifice of belief and practice around it. We need to understand the total context of Paul’s thinking on the topic and make a judgement about which verse, or section most closely represents his assumed core thinking.  This task is in no way straightforward. There are plenty of other problematic passages in Paul, and elsewhere, where we hesitate to pronounce them as normative for contemporary Christian behaviour. I am thinking here particularly of assumptions about slavery and the rearing of children. These topics go beyond today’s blog discussion. What I want to emphasise at this moment is how important it is always to read every biblical passage, not as an isolated fragment of God’s teaching, but as one which emerges out of a context. The context is one which may be partly theological and partly cultural. Removing any saying or teaching from its original context is likely to lead to a distortion of meaning.  The removal of Pastor Robinson from office for doing just this was justifiable and necessary.

Understanding how a biblical injunction or segment of Christian truth fits within its original context is to begin to see the importance of in-depth bible study and scholarship. To understand any passage of scripture at depth, one has to get out of a pik ‘n’ mix approach. This is the way of approaching scripture as a mine full of quotable treasures surrounded by other passages of much less interest for the task of preaching. Another image that comes to me to describe a failure to engage scripture at sufficient depth, is to regard the study of scripture as being like negotiating a raging torrent.  Many preachers are fearful of getting wet, so they avail themselves of a series of large steppingstones provided to ensure a safe passage across.  These steppingstones are the safe memorised quotations which can be confidently inserted into any sermon.  These give the impression of a complete doctrinal orthodoxy in Christian teaching.  The actual situation, which most ‘liberal’ preachers have discovered, is that the ‘truth’ of Scripture is not to be found on the safe stones that appear above the torrent, but sometimes in the depths of the dangerous waters.  Biblical scholars, and those who read their works, are used to getting thoroughly soaked in the waters of this torrent.  Another problem about the fast-flowing torrent is that the bottom, a place where we would like to stand securely, is sometimes hard to find. This makes these scholars into pilgrim explorers of unknown regions. Studying Scripture at depth with the tools of critical analysis and a familiarity with ancient languages is a tough call.  Few preachers can give the time for this kind of study. But one thing can be asked of every single preacher who ascends a pulpit on a Sunday morning. Just because the detail of biblical scholarship is not part of your training, it is wrong to condemn it because it appears superficially to undermine faith as you understand it.  Many biblical scholars are men and women of faith. Perhaps two things make their journeys different from the simplistic approach to Scripture which the people in Pastor Robinson’s congregation have followed. In the first place, scholarly informed preachers take the context of the words of Scripture very seriously indeed. They see connections and meanings which cannot be glimpsed if we read Scripture only as a series of proof texts accommodating a preconceived doctrinal pattern. The second aspect of the scholarly approach is that the task of exploration is undertaken with no sense of fear. The scholars know that their findings, like those in science, may be changed or reformulated in a short space of time. That experience of provisionality does not put them off their task. They accept the fact that much of the church misunderstands their vocation to follow the fearless but untidy uncovering of truth wherever it leads.

Much modern Christian preaching seems to consist of teaching the Bible in easy to remember slogans. Just as the preacher has kept his/her feet dry by not exploring the depths of the torrent, so the listeners are not encouraged to ask questions or explore the deeper realms of their own individual spiritual journeys. Many Christians would prefer to understand their Christian journey as an adventure through dangerous rapids rather than walking along a path carefully manicured, with tidy lawns and predictable views.  I venture to suggest that the real task of pastoral care is the task of accompaniment through a life of spiritual discovery rather than the handing on of safe religious platitudes.  The formulaic package of truth is often what is on offer, not a deep understanding of spiritual experience. The former version of truth has no nuance about it. There is no flexibility in the words in which it is expressed.  Above all there is no sense in which this kind of faith emerges from a context which engages with tradition, language and truth.  The word truth is of course another of those slippery words which can divide people as much as unite them. It is hard to agree in words on what truth in fact is. Part of the problem is that truth needs words and somehow these words often prove inadequate to express its nature. Truth in other words, normally transcends our words and concepts.

I enter this difficult and politically contentious world of scriptural interpretation because I am aware of the way that some preaching is causing real harm to groups of people. The damage caused to sexual minorities and women who are trying to be faithful to their husbands in a ‘biblical’ way, is extensive. I comment on these topics in order to help some people to become more aware of what is going on.  What is, in fact, going on in many situations, when the Christian rhetoric is stripped away from the situation, is the assertion of male domination over women.  It is that that needs to be challenged. Power abuse in the name of the Bible is always blasphemous and to be resisted.  In the case of Pastor Robinson, it was so outrageous that it could be dealt with quickly. In most other contexts where the Bible is used to oppress women, that persecution may be subtle, hidden and unchallenged.  My response to those who misuse the Bible to hurt others, is to say, you have failed to understand. You are taking biblical words out of context. Shame on you for failing to understand and share the wider picture, the proclamation of the transforming love that Jesus came to bring.

I have been recently reading a book by an American author called Wade Mullen.  His book, Something’s Not Right is full of provocative insights about the dynamics of churches, especially those which incubate abusive practices.  Early on in the book, he introduces an important theme about the way that secrecy finds a place in many congregations and can be a source of toxic harm. Mullen identifies five types of secrecy.  For this post I find it easier, even at the risk of leaving something out, to present a shorter list of three.  My attempt to categorise the way secrecy operates in churches thus departs from Mullen’s more detailed classification.  The shorter incomplete list also makes a concession to a memory that finds a description with only three headings far easier to manage than one with five.  The important thing is that we recognise that secrecy, as experienced in churches, comes in more than one guise.  These headings need to be separated from one another for the sake of clarity and understanding. In this way we can appreciate what might be going on when secrecy in its different manifestations is operating in the life of a church congregation.

Overall, a secret is probably best defined as a piece of information that is kept hidden for one of a number of reasons.  Many of us grew up in families where there were family secrets which had never been discussed for decades, even lifetimes.  There was perhaps the cousin who had spent time in prison or the aunt who had a child out of wedlock. Today there are still families where illegitimacy is never discussed and adopted children are never told about their past.  Nevertheless, generally the tendency is now to hold on to fewer family secrets than in the past.  The notion of stigma of course still exists, but now there are probably fewer reasons to feel it today in the way our Victorian ancestors experienced it.  Today we regard many of the secrets of the past as revealing tragedy rather than wickedness.  Contemporary social attitudes have helped us all to let go of many of the old reasons for hanging on to family secrets.

As I thought through the nature of secrets that can exist in our church communities, I realised that many continue to do harm.  I want first to speak of deep secrets which Mullen calls dark.  The experience by an individual of past sexual abuse within a church context could be described in this way.  A fiendishly evil act is perpetrated against a child. The damage done to the young person is made far worse by a promise imposed on the child by the perpetrator.  What has happened must never be revealed. The child grows up with the deep secret which is like a place of darkness inside the soul.  It cannot be visited or brought to the light. There must be many people in our churches carrying such deep secrets about which the rest of the world knows nothing. Many such secret-burdened victims attend church.  Even if they succeed in burying their secrets, these hidden events can be said to live within the individual concerned, accomplishing their dark work of harm to the psyche. The external manifestations of a buried secret may be mental or physical.  Mental afflictions like PTSD, depression or a dissociative disorder can be the public manifestations of a buried secret. The same secret also lives on inside one other personality, that of the perpetrator.  It is hard to see how the action of abusing an innocent child can ever be forgotten or brushed out of existence in some way, merely because it is not spoken about. Even if the secrets of a perpetrator or victim are never spoken of, their capacity to affect the life of a congregation is significant. Spiritual and psychological woundedness in a person cannot always be prevented from spreading itself around to affect others in unpredictable ways. Some secret carriers may, of course, learn through skilled help to overcome the traumas of the past, but many do not.  

Deep secrets are not the only kind that afflict and sometimes poison our church communities.  Guided in part by Mullen’s analysis, I want to address two further ways that secrecy enters the church bloodstream in negative ways.   The first of these two types is what I want to call control by secrecy.  A powerful group in a church community holds on to its power by excluding all but a favoured few from having access to important information. This form of holding power, by restricting access to information, is summed up in the aphorism ‘knowledge is power’.  A vivid example of the way this type of secrecy operates is in the summary report of the Bishop’s commissioners to the parish of Wymondham.  The way that information about PCC decisions and details of the finances were restricted to a few favoured people was a factor in the general sense of dysfunction that was creating much unhappiness in the congregation.  Obviously, there are some things that have to be kept confidential in any organisation. But it is not uncommon for the people in charge to control information as a way of consolidating power and influence for themselves.  Any democratic organisation will want to share details of decision making, allowing the people they represent to know how things are being done on their behalf.   Without proper information all those outside the charmed group of leaders, the in-crowd, are left without any knowledge of what is being decided on their behalf. 

A third use of secrecy is also about control but in this form, it is about control of an individual. One person threatens to reveal the private information of another unless they cooperate to do the blackmailer’s bidding.  We normally associate blackmail with money, but there are many ways in which the power of threatening to reveal secrets is used to obtain other ends. With children it may be used just to feel the momentary thrill of being powerful over someone else.  In writing these words, I can remember an incident at my boarding school when I was 11 or 12. The school bully was threatening to tell a secret about me to everyone. My ‘shameful’ secret centred around my journey home from the school on several occasions by bicycle on a Sunday afternoon during the summer term. It was a thirteen-mile journey, but my brother and I managed it fairly easily.  For the journey back to school the bicycles would be loaded up on to the family car roof rack.  The bully had got the impression that we had claimed to have cycled the journey in both directions.  He then reported to me the information that my father had been seen lifting the bicycles off the rack. I think I succeeded in persuading him that there was never any claim on my part to cycle 26 miles in a single afternoon.  I thus managed to convince him that there was no secret plot to persuade the world that I was a stamina cyclist. 

The possession of secret information about another person can lead to an exploitative relationship over them for a long time. The one who possesses the secret can, if they wish, manipulate the other person by making implicit or explicit threats.   Unless you do what I ask, I will release your secret.  We saw the way that Bishop Peter Ball was able to manipulate and blackmail his victims once he had made them feel guilty over aspects of their sexuality.   The sheer force of Ball’s personality had already extracted from them their intimate personal secrets. We can imagine many similar scenarios in a church abuse situation where the knowledge of personal sexual secrets is then twisted to make someone vulnerable to further abuse.  Other church situations can be imagined where individuals reveal to a pastor their deep personal secrets, only to find themselves emotionally in bondage to the same spiritual leader.  The revelation of personal information to another always has the potential to be exploited by that person.  Churches contain their share of manipulators and blackmailers as anywhere else.

Secrecy is deeply embedded in the dynamics of power abuse, both on the personal and the institutional level.  The church should, of course, be a place where we can share our deepest truths and vulnerabilities without any fear of betrayal.  No one should ever have to find their entrusted secrets being revealed to others.  The cults have always used this dynamic of persuading an individual to hand over everything, their money and their intimate secrets to ensure that the individual concerned can never leave.  The threat of revealing shame laden events in one’s life is one way that such cultic groups can exert so much power over their followers.  All too often we can see the way that the process of uncovering a person’s private vulnerabilities is the prelude to a life of exploitation and an experience of brokenness.

Secrets are, in the last resort, precious and fragile things. The exposing of our own secrets to another and the receiving those of others can be a quasi-sacred process.  If sharing of secrets can be a precious, even a holy thing, the Church should try to become a place where we can do this really well. The successful sharing of secrets with another person is a place on the way to building complete trust in that person.  Trust of this kind is part of the range of components that together create love and community, both of which are among the values that Christians look for. When trust disappears and a betrayal of our vulnerabilities takes place, we find fragmentation and isolation.  May the Church find itself better able to be a place committed to the preservation of justice, truth and integrity. 

When the book of Jonah reports that God changed his mind over the destruction of Nineveh, the reason given for this decision was the repentance of the people. The idea of God changing his mind occurs in other parts of the Old Testament, notably in the story of Abraham pleading for the city of Sodom.  The total number of righteous people in the city, which would justify its survival, is gradually negotiated down by Abraham’s pleadings.  Both these accounts show that, for the writers of these books, the changing of decisions or opinion is something that happens. It is not something that has to be resisted at all costs.  If God can be seen to repent of the decisions that he has made, then the same can occur for ordinary humans. It is certainly not to be regarded as a matter of shame or disgrace.

Why and when do people change their mind over decisions they have made? I think there are three main reasons, all of which are honourable. In the first place, an individual may obtain new information about a situation.  This forces him or her to rethink what they have decided. Then there is the activity of another person, the persuader, as we see in the Abraham story. The art of persuasion or rhetoric is often able to shift a person’s decision, especially if it is done with skill.  Finally, some people change their mind over something because they take the time to reflect about it. Attitudes and opinions seldom stay the same over periods of time. We know of course people for whom the opposite is true.  It is a matter of pride that their opinions about other people and ideas remains firmly fixed and unchanged.   I refer to them as the ‘what I always say’ brigade.  This dogmatic frame of mind is not especially attractive as a human trait, but it is widely encountered in church circles.

In spite of the examples of God changing his mind in the pages of Scripture, most people find it difficult to change their minds once they have made a decision.  We may suggest a number of reasons for this. One is that it is thought to be a sign of weakness not to maintain an opinion or attitude once it has been clearly stated. Fixed opinions are considered to be a sign of human strength.  Strong unchanging convictions are widely celebrated in some Christian circles. It is also a source of pride for some to say ‘I am never wrong in my opinions’. Groups of people with strong unyielding opinions also gain much self-esteem in belonging to groups that cannot and will not falter in their convictions.  Many Christians gravitate to such groups.  These are often associated to what we would broadly describe as a conservative approach to the Bible. Many so-called Bible believers hold on to a single version of the truth thought to be revealed in Scripture. When beliefs are held in this way, it does not allow for much in the way of flexibility of thought or the ability to change one’s mind about anything.

Over the past week we have seen a welcome change of mind on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury.  This change of mind is connected with comments he made about George Bell, the late Bishop of Chichester, who died in 1958.  Bell’s memory had been tainted by the suggestion that he had been responsible for a case of child abuse in the early 50s.  Welby’s apology and change of mind over his remarks has allowed a great man’s memory to be recovered for the future. My own interest and concern for Bell’s reputation goes back to the time when I knew him, or, rather learnt to recognise him as he strode across the precincts of Canterbury during the last months of his life. In some way this slight personal contact has made me solicitous for his memory. It is unnecessary for us to speculate on the real reasons for Welby’s change of mind. We just need to accept it and be grateful for it.

In the world of safeguarding there are other current examples of injustice which cry out to be resolved, if only the accusers would carefully examine all the evidence and follow through, without endless hold-ups, to act on what that evidence tells us.  One case that is never far from this blog is the situation at Christ Church Oxford and the involvement of the Church in the dispute.  The state of play there has reached a kind of impasse between the Dean, the Bishop of Oxford and the NST.  Various church investigations have taken place, and these have all concluded that there are no further steps to be taken in the investigation of Percy’s behaviour by the Church.  Martin Sewell in a question at General Synod on Tuesday afternoon summed up the situation very succinctly and well.  He asked: ‘Would the Church be ‘stating unequivocally and clearly that, from the point of view of the national church, there is currently no impediment to the Dean of Christ Church resuming his ministry as soon as his health allows it’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7rAldeH2Oc question comes at 4 hr 11 min Sewell was doing two things simultaneously with this question.  His first challenge was to the church authorities, asking them to state clearly if there were other accusations against the Dean, not so far aired, and which justify seeing him as a continuing safeguarding risk.  If there were, this might explain the endless delays in the church legal processes.  He was also pointing out that, as far he could see, the legal processes of the Church against the Dean were now exhausted, leaving no justifiable reason in church law for continuing to enforce impediments against the Dean.  it is important to understand that the rules applied at General Synod Question Time are very restrictive and strictly enforced. The point has to be made in two or three sentences. Had he more time, Sewell might have highlighted what some of us know.

If there were any serious concern in the Bishop of Oxford’s mind that the Dean presents a risk of sufficient weight to justify the extraordinary strictures imposed upon him by the College and Cathedral, he and the National Church institutions  have available to them the provisions of the 2016 Safeguarding Clergy Risk Assessment rules by which a proper independent professional would both define what “the risk” is supposed to be ( which nobody has yet put in the public domain ) and what proportionate steps – if any – are needed to manage it.

Currently the Bishop clings to a highly discredited set of risk assessments prepared by nobody with expertise, both hostile to the Dean and who attributed their work to persons who denied all knowledge of it. 

The fifteen seconds that followed Sewell’s question were instructive to watch.  Bishop Jonathan Gibbs, as the lead bishop for safeguarding, came up with the official response.  What he actually said about going by the book in the way the Church operated in these matters, was not addressing the point that Sewell had raised.  Before giving this non-answer, the Bishop appeared mute.  He looked around for help to answer the question, but nothing was offered. it was clear that neither he nor any of the lawyers or church officials had any proper responses to Sewell’s question. We are left to conclude that there is currently no legitimate reason for the Church authorities to collude and cooperate with the bullying and persecution of the Dean by members of the College Governing Body.  The truth of the situation is that the Church nationally has been sucked into a whirlpool of professional jealousies within the College and aided and abetted by factions within the Diocese of Oxford.  This is proving impossible to resolve in the absence of decisive leadership and a strong grasp of the principles of justice.  Bishop Jonathan is not senior enough within the system to make the necessary decisions to sort out this problem. Change in the situation can only come from authority higher than he represents. Tuesday afternoon showed that he had no answers and none to suggest.  There needs to be a readiness on the part of those senior to him to be prepared, as Archbishop Welby has done, to engage in a decisive change of mind.  Someone in the Church needs to ‘repent of the evil that he had purposed’ against the Dean of Christ Church so relationships and morale can be restored.

Archbishop Welby has set an example to the whole Church that it is possible to be wrong and be prepared to admit to it.  I hope and expect that many people have welcomed this gesture.  In the safeguarding world it is particularly welcomed, especially if it proves to be the beginning of a trend to openness and justice in the Church.  Church leaders, from archbishops downwards, know how much harm has been done by refusing to engage with the fact that people in authority get things wrong, sometimes tragically wrong.  The Archbishop has asked for a leaner, humbler church.  What better place to start that with a Church takes really seriously the place of apology, the place where there is no shame in saying publicly ‘Sorry I got it wrong; let me try my best to put it right.’  That is what is urgently required in the Christ Church tragedy to help restore integrity to the entire body.

One of the features of an interregnum in a parish is that those left in charge are often reluctant to make decisions pending the arrival of a new vicar.  ‘Wait until the new vicar arrives’ is the cry of many hard-pressed churchwardens over some intractable problem.   When I became an incumbent, back in 1979, of a group of parishes in Herefordshire, I was fortunate that the in-tray only consisted of one query about a memorial stone which had been left till my arrival by the churchwardens.  It turned out to be a matter of spending time with a widow explaining why a particular choice of words would look strange after a period of time.  I don’t recall the details, but at least it could be sorted within 24 hours of my induction. The in-trays for most arriving clergy are usually far fuller than that. Some decisions are the difficult problems that have been left unresolved from the time of their predecessors. The failure to make a decision is, in many cases, a fear of having to favour one of two or more parish factions. From the very beginning a new vicar is closely watched to see which group he/she is likely to support. Decision making becomes a political matter of trying to balance the interests of competing groups.  Whatever choice is made is going to be wrong for someone.

If the in-trays of parish clergy are often full on day one of an incumbency, the same is also true for bishops.  The newly arrived Bishop of Norwich, Graham Usher, inherited a particularly intractable problem when he took up office in 2019 – the problem of Wymondham Abbey. This parish has been plagued with unhappiness and conflict for some time and no doubt the filing cabinet of the previous Bishop of Norwich contained letters and the minutes of meetings on the topic. In his own words, when speaking about this correspondence generated by the problem, Bishop Graham stated that ‘these matters have monopolised a huge amount of my time since becoming Bishop of Norwich.’  What the Bishop is stating is that this one parish has given him a great deal of stress and aggravation. This, no doubt, has affected the time and attention available to him for the care of the rest of the Diocese.  In an attempt to deal with the issue rather than let it continue to fester, the Bishop set up a Bishop’s Visitation to the parish.  The seven-page document that has been recently released is a summary of the report made by three commissioners appointed to conduct the Visitation on the Bishop’s behalf.  The document also sets out the Bishop’s Directions as to the way that each of the identified problems in the parish should be dealt with. It is essentially a public rebuke of what the Bishop has determined to be the damaging behaviour on the part the Vicar and some of the parish officials This published document is dated All Saints Day 2021 and it has been picked up by several newspapers, including The Times.  https://www.dioceseofnorwich.org/app/uploads/2021/11/Wymondham-Directions-Final-All-Saints-Day-2021.pdf

A word about the Vicar of Wymondham, Catherine Relf-Pennington .  Her professional record does not appear in my online Crockford directory of the clergy, but she has been Vicar there since 2017.  The Crockford details the recent staffing of the parish, and this tells us that Catherine came to the parish as a curate in 2014. It is highly unusual for a curate to be ‘promoted’ to Vicar. Such a move can possibly suggest that the post was hard to fill, but that part of the story is not in the public domain.  Wymondham was not Catherine’s training parish as, according to an earlier printed Crockford, she had already served as an incumbent for five years.  Before that, her career was fragmentary.  She served two curacies of a year each and was briefly an assistant at the American Episcopal church in Paris.  Her training and ordination were all in Australia.

The headline of the public document about Wymondham is that the Vicar has been ‘directed’ by her bishop to apologise to her congregation for aspects of her ministry.   A public rebuke of this kind is unusual, and the question immediately arises: is she being treated fairly?  My normal inclination when hearing about clerical misdemeanours is to start with an assumption every priest has a combination of strengths and weaknesses.   Some may be excellent preachers but very poor at administration.  Others may be excellent pastors but find delegating an impossible task.  Every clergyperson I have ever known is good at some parts of the total package and less competent or even weak in other aspects.  My first inclination is to look for the strengths in ministry and then see if the weaknesses come anywhere near cancelling out these strengths.  The report, unfortunately, does nothing to help us see the Vicar in a positive light.   After reading the document about the ministry at Wymondham, one is not given enough information to make a informed judgement about whether there are positive aspects in her ministry.  Although it is said that there were some ‘who are appreciative of the Vicar’s ministry and the work she has done’  we are not told in which sphere this appreciated work is found.  We find ourselves making our assessments of the situation without having all the facts we would like.

The document containing Bishop Graham’s Directions does not pull it punches in listing the issues connected with relationships, property, finance and administration that are being raised against the Vicar and a significant cohort of PCC members.  The list reads like a parish horror movie.   Most of us know parishes where aspects of church life have broken down but, in the case of Wymondham, it seems that almost every aspect of the parish life has fallen apart.  Without going into too much detail, the Churchwardens and PCC are in a bitter dispute with the Diocese over the maintenance and siting of the Vicarage.  No parish share has been paid for several years, thus depriving the Diocese of a significant slice of its expected income.  This failure seems to be part of a PCC resentment over the Vicarage disputes. The finances of the Church are in a state of disorder generally, with money being spent outside proper supervision.  Auditing has become problematic, and it is evident that it has become difficult to know what is going on in this area.  Issues over the place of music in the church remain to be resolved as the Vicar appears not to have an appreciation for the musical heritage in Wymondham.  Pastoral care of the elderly and the young has also suffered.

The reader might wonder why the many problems raised had not be brought up in a complaint against the Vicar under CDM rules.  Apparently two CDM complaints from 2019 and 2020 are still ongoing.  Bishop Graham, no doubt under legal and pastoral advice, is making his main Direction as a way of clearing these out of the way in one dramatic gesture.  He states: ‘the incumbent is directed to meet with all the complainants in person .. and to apologise to them without reservation for the behaviour which gave rise to the allegations which they raised.’   This is the language of a bold leader, but it will require considerable gifts of humility on the part of the Vicar to comply.  It is this exercise of a bishop’s authority that has attracted attention in the press and no doubt throughout the Church.  It also indicates that Bishop Graham has taken onboard the fact that the legal processes involved in CDMs do not often achieve good outcomes.  In this blog we are constantly reminded of the fact that legal processes involved in safeguarding cases often leave behind lasting bitterness and enormous expense.  The simple letter or word of apology may be the soft word that turns away wrath.  This is what is needed in so many places in the Church at present.   We desperately need other such apologies ‘without reservation’. We need the powerful in the Church from Archbishops downwards to be able to make this kind of gesture ‘without reservation’ to the wronged and abused. Here we are not talking about the original abuse (that may require legal remedies) but for all the ways that the Church has compounded the abuse by defensive unloving tactics – playing the legal games which inevitably batter down the weak.

A number of final questions arise which I am sure are being addressed in the Diocese of Norwich at present.  How was the original appointment made when clearly the Vicar does not show evident aptitude for many of the routine tasks of parish life?  Did not the somewhat eccentric CV raise questions?  Is it ever a good thing to appoint a curate to become the incumbent of the parish, unless there are extraordinary circumstances?

The Wymondham case may prove to be a decisive moment in the history of the way that power is administered in parishes and dioceses.  Bishop Graham has staked the moral power and authority given to him as a bishop to ‘direct’ an erring person to retract what is clearly poor behaviour.  We hope it will work and, as a sweetener, the Bishop is offering to expunge all the legal CDM processes in the pipeline at a stroke.  If his directions are not followed, then the price to be paid by the parish will be extremely high.  The disputes will remain, and the diocesan and episcopal support structures will be unavailable to help the parish move into the future.   The proud traditions of a church community based at one of the finest church buildings in the East of England will be dimmed, if not extinguished altogether.    If the apology is indeed offered and accepted that will, importantly, also set a magnificent precedent for the wider church.  We will all be richer if such an act of public restoration is achieved.   The Church will be seen to be fulfilling its vocation to be a place where broken relationships are restored, and justice is achieved without a single lawyer or reputation manger anywhere in sight.  Then it might be properly said:   See how these Christians love one another. 

Going Public: A Survivor’s Journey from Grief to Action Between the Lines, by Julie Macfarlane 2020

Reading the sorry history of the Church of England and its response to sexual abuse survivors over the past 10 years, one detects some profound failures of understanding and communication. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the account given us by Professor Julie Macfarlane in her chronicle of her fight against the legal forces deployed against her by the Church.  The book details these struggles, when she sought to obtain justice for herself as a victim of sexual violence perpetrated by a member of the Church of England clergy.

Macfarlane’s early story needs to be told in an abbreviated form.  As a child growing up in Chichester, she was sexually abused by a priest for several years from the ag of 16.  Her life was naturally seriously affected by the abuse.  Nevertheless, in spite of later suffering from repeated bouts of cancer and the typical PSTD symptoms experienced by many victims, she managed to build a successful career in the law, eventually becoming a Law Professor in Canada.  It is Macfarlane’s legal background which gives her account of her struggles a particular power and distinct perspective.  When she found out that her abuser was still operating as an Anglican priest in Western Australia, she used her professional contacts and know-how to ensure that he was prevented from ministering as an Anglican.  She later discovered that he simply joined another denomination.  This inability of the church and the law to put a block on an individual who was a known abuser stimulated her into further action.  Her motive was simply that this priest, Meirion Griffiths, should cease to be a danger to other vulnerable people.  The book that Macfarlane wrote, Going Public is her account of costly struggle to achieve this.  The story concludes with Griffiths sent to prison in England for eight years at the start of 2020.

The shocking part of the book, which must have had considerable impact among the higher echelons of the Church of England, is the account of what can only be described as her ‘hand to hand’ combat with the expensive lawyers employed by the Church.  There is in her story confirmation of the tactics that Gilo has reported of the Church and its insurers, using aggressive and bullying questioning by lawyers to try to avoid paying more than nominal amounts in compensation. The methods to attempt to discredit her testimony on the part of church lawyers were similar to those used in rape trials.  In summary, the defence lawyer or here the insurer’s lawyer, attempted to trash her reputation as an abuse victim as much as possible.  This is apparently considered normal practice in these kinds of hearings.  We also heard about the use by the Church of a ‘tame’ psychiatrist with no professional experience of dealing with child sexual abuse.  He was prepared to write reports, sometimes without even meeting the victims, that would suggest that there were other episodes in a victim’s life which were responsible for the present mental anguish caused by the abuse.

Professor Julie Macfarlane’s legal and moral victory over the legal forces ranged against her, was not just a victory for herself.  It was a victory potentially to be shared by all survivors who are seeking to hold the Church to account for what they have suffered.  As part of her financial settlement, she has, with the help of her students in Canada put forward suggestions for a new protocol for these kinds of cases.  This protocol was published in 2016 as a statement by EIO of their new guiding principles.  I am unclear whether this initiative has been followed through with an external appraisal.   Macfarlane has also succeeded in correcting the assumption, apparently held by senior officials in the Church, that it has no say in the methods used by its lawyers in compensation cases after abuse.  This has been shown to be untrue. We certainly never again want to see the nadir of church non-responsiveness to abuse victims which was reached when two archbishops publicly failed to engage with Matt Ineson.  Both men had been invited to say a word to Matt who was sitting near them at the IICSA hearings. Both declined.  This was, no doubt, on the ‘advice of lawyers’.  The Church has been in thrall to an understanding of the rules around compensation which suggested that it is necessary to withold all communication with victims when there is some kind of legal case pending.  In fact, the Compensation Act of 2006 says the complete opposite.   Words of apology do not and cannot affect the outcome of compensation cases.

I am going to make an assumption that the Church of England is in the process of adopting a number of new legal and pastoral protocols following the Macfarlane case.  I have no knowledge of whether that is in fact the case.  All I can say is that, from what I am hearing, the appetite for aggressively defending the Church against abuse claims seems to have changed in tone over recent months.  What still remains to be done? if there is a will to reform the protocols and make it easier for victim/survivors to receive a hearing and a just response, how can the church authorities show that they mean business?  The short answer is that there is a need for the Church, as any large institution, to communicate in writing with victims/survivors to offer a meaningful apology   To get a hint of what it might look like, we need to look at the actions of the Australian government towards the tens of thousands of unmarried women who were forced to give up children for adoption.  The Australian government has written to each of these women expressing its sorrow, regret and apology.  The impression I get from reading about this decision, which dates back to 2013, is that it has been much appreciated by the women concerned.  A government apology, according to one woman, lifts the stain of quasi-criminality that has hung over her throughout her life.  The letter represents a kind of judicial pardon, even if no crime had ever been committed.  These mothers had been marked with a kind of taint which made them feel less than complete members of society. 

In Britain there is now a movement to obtain something similar from our government.  Once again it would mean an enormous amount to women who have suffered the trauma of losing their children and the taint of illegitimacy to receive such a letter.  I am unclear whether financial compensation is due to be paid, but the general impression is that such payments are not to the fore when the women come forward seeking to receive recognition for what they have had to suffer over decades.  They want a written apology as it will substantially contribute to a measure of emotional healing as they approach the end of life.

Readers of this blog will have probably already anticipated where the discussion is taking us.  At a time when the appalling extent of institutionally enabled sexual abuse and bullying has been acknowledged by the Church, perhaps the institution needs to get ahead of the game and think creatively about how they are going to respond to so many who have been doubly harmed – by the abuse and the crass church treatment that came afterwards.  The Australian example indicates to us the power of the apology.  Apologies are not only appropriate gestures by actual perpetrators of crimes but they can also be made by those who preside as leaders of the institutions that allowed the criminals to exist.  The Canadian government deemed it appropriate to apologise to the members of the First Nations groups who were forcibly placed in boarding schools, destroying their languages and culture.  There are presumably experts who have studied this issue of the effectiveness of such apologies.  Certainly, the Church should have a contribution to make in this area with its access to an understanding of forgiveness and the restoration of relationships.  To judge from my interactions with survivors, I would express the belief that apologies, if they are made with the right words and the right motivation, could do an enormous amount to change the atmosphere in the Church as it faces up to its appalling record in the safeguarding disasters of the past ten years.

What would an apology look like?  I am not in  a position to offer a blueprint but I would suggest that it needs to attempt at least the following aims. It goes without saying that such letters should be prompt and not give the impression of unwillingness and endless delays.

• Any written apology must communicate integrity.  This means that all cliché must be rigorously avoided and the words chosen extremely carefully.
• The survivor should have control over whether their apology will be shared and made public by them (ie no NDAs).
• Reference to biblical material may be inserted, but quotations from the Bible cannot be the ‘shut down discussion’ type.   They need to illustrate and fill out central Christian concerns for truth and justice as well as forgiveness.
• A letter of apology will need to involve the insights of survivors to assist the writer in avoiding insincere sounding phrases.  The survivors are the experts in language that avoids cant.
• The way that the writer is involved needs to be spelt out.  A bishop of a diocese is in an indirect way identified with the good and bad of his predecessors.  This relationship may be tangential, but it is still there.  A bishop of Gloucester is, for good and for ill, the inheritor of Peter Ball’s abuse.  The diocese carries that terrible story in its history and in its blood stream.  Anything said by a current bishop must reflect that sense of retrospective shame in some way.  When it comes to Archbishops or leaders of religious networks such as ReNew, the critical task is to find the correct level of identification with the horrors of the past.  Where guilt exists, it needs to be owned up to.  This will include the guilt of cover-up, secrecy or the dismissive demeaning treatment of survivors.  The best thing for everyone is to have a thorough understanding and sense of the history of abuse.  This will come from listening to survivors and reading the reports which are now numerous.  Knowing the past is to ensure that that past is properly respected so that the abuse cannot easily happen again.  Denying the past or trivialising it is a certain to communicate a lack of sincere sorrow for everything which has happened.  Survivors will sense very quickly if a leader tries to distant him/herself from the past we all share..

The story of Julie Macfarlane is in part an account of deeply destructive attitudes put out by church leaders and their lawyers which did so much harm to a generation of survivors.    Her story was only published barely a year ago and there is still a great deal to be done to respond to her story by the whole Church.  In the words of Psalm 51 ‘shame (still) covers our face’.

The path towards institutional healing for the Church of England in its appalling failures over safeguarding will not be completed over night.  When the task of absorbing the lessons of Makin, the Christ Church debacle, in which senior members of the Church have played a less than honourable role, and other similar stories is done, the final stage of reaching out to survivors can begin.  It could, of course, begin sooner, but I sense that there are perhaps still too many ambivalent feelings among the potential authors of such letters to make the task straightforward.  The church institution and its leaders need time, but in the meantime there are many would-be volunteers able to help those leaders plan for this final and crucial gesture of reconciliation to its suffering abused members.