I have to go back almost 50 years to remember the experience of attending a professional football match.  The setting was Selhurst Park, and the team that I was nominally supporting was Crystal Palace.  At the time, I followed the fortunes of this team in a half-hearted way since it was my local team. Several members of my youth club were always talking about it.  I have no memory of who won the match I attended, or even who the opposing team was.  The memory I have is of the extraordinary roar of the crowd as it followed the action.  This might be thought to give fans an experience of something like a ‘one hundred and forty-four thousand’ event as in Revelation 7.

My brief exposure to the world of football was sufficient to allow me some small understanding of the intense tribal loyalties that coalesce around all the different clubs in this country.  The important thing for me to understand then was that there was truly nothing more important in the world than for the favoured side to win.  It was Bill Shankly who said “Some people believe football is a matter of life and death, I am very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that.”  I wonder how many other groups in society command that kind of devotion and loyalty.   If we were to suggest that a Christian feels even a small amount of this devotion, then the Church would be a considerably livelier institution.  The non-members of the Church might see the devotion of the members, if there were even a little of the dedication shown by an ardent football fan. Such ‘evangelism’ would not necessarily be attractive to the outsider but at least they would know that the fans of the Church were serious in their commitment.  However, sadly, evangelism does not seem to work like this.  Few Christians seem able to feel, let alone communicate, the radiant exuberance of the devoted football fan.

The identification of the football fan with his/her team is rewarded by the occasional intense moment of experiencing the triumph of victory.  Equally, there are the other times of disappointment and pain.  As a student I once worked as a barman for a single day at Twickenham when a big rugby match was under way.  It became apparent to me, as I collected up countless beer glasses, that intense joy or sorrow could both be marked by the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol.

Being a football fan allows the individual to experience the highs and lows of an identification with a large institution.  All human beings need to belong, and the identification with a team gives the individual fan a strong sense of being part of a ‘we’.  There are two aspects of this belonging.  First, the fan feels part of the playing team, the managers, the players and the coaches.  All fans will have strong opinions as to why things are going wrong, if they do.  The language used to criticise managers seems to be colourful and explicit.  Alongside this sense of bonding with the team etc., there is also the experience of mutuality and solidarity with fellow fans.  They are met on the terraces and on the trains going to and from away matches. Although racism and homophobic attitudes have sadly crept into the world of football, most fans would prefer their team and its supporters to be more moral and upright than others.  Fans are quick to condemn such things as fixed matches and bribery allegations.  Bad behaviour by players, on or off the pitch, is taken personally and the shame of such episodes is felt keenly by fans as though committed by the fan individually.  Conversely when a player is revealed as upright and moral, the fans feel the pride of achievement as though it is their own.  Marcus Rashford, whose actions on behalf of poor families earned him an MBE, was applauded by Manchester United fans because ‘their’ player was seen to achieve in a new sphere of excellence.

Passionate identification with an institution is something that Christians should be able to recognise readily.  For a Christian, the identification is a double reality.  We identify with Christ himself and our belief is that we approach God ‘as found in him’.  The act of Communion is a moment where we symbolically become part of him.  Our identification is also one we make with an institution, the Church.  In being Christians, we have chosen to identify with Christ as well as the mixed bag of fellow travellers who call themselves Christian pilgrims.

Identifying with a group of other people over whom we have no influence or control is, however, a risky business.  If they are good people and respected by others, then our identification with them is a positive thing for us.  If, on the other hand these people are evil and bent only on their selfish needs, then our act of solidarity with them can diminish us and be personally damaging. If there is a risk involved in being identified with the institutional Church, this is especially true especially of a Christian leader.  Such leaders benefit if the Church has a good reputation and is thought by ordinary people to be doing a good job.  They can more easily enjoy the esteem of their position.  If on the other hand the reputation of the Church is poor, the esteem given to leaders can shrink to point of vanishing.  Their job will become increasingly hard to do and any gratification afforded to them by having status in society will be under threat.

In a situation where there is periodic negative publicity against the Church, such as we have at present, Christian leaders have a dilemma.  One way of dealing with the situation is to defend the institution by maintaining that any wrongdoing is not typical of the whole.  This may be true but that is not how the watching public sees it. ‘They are all tarred with same brush’ might be the unfair but typical response after yet another scandal in the Church.  The onlooker has grasped a part of the truth.  The shame of an abusive action by a leader or a member does implicate many innocent others in some way.  The honest approach in the face of any scandal in the Church is for the leaders to acknowledge the fact that the shame of abusive actions spreads outwards.  When wrongdoing occurs, there is a need for healing and reparation to take place within the wider institution.  Any attempt to deny the awfulness of what has happened, or worse still, attempts to bury the truth, will be seen as examples of appalling hypocrisy.  Guilt may not belong to every single member but leaders’ attempts at cover-up or burying the truth with silence and denial, will severely damage the whole Church institution.  This damaged reputation will be severely corrosive on the ability of the Church to get alongside people in the future and to be trusted by the general population.

The football fan is passionately identified with his/her football team.  The pain of defeat or the shame of bad behaviour by a team member is accepted as part of the course.  If a fan were only to celebrate the victories and ignore the negatives and defeats, we would question their status as a proper supporter. If a member or leader in the Church refuses to own any sense of imputed shame when things go wrong and people are harmed in some way, then we seem to be witnessing a betrayal.  It might also be described as a failure of nerve and commitment.  In practical terms, a passionate identification with team Church has been exchanged for their cowardly silence and neutrality.  At this moment we are very much aware, because of the death of ++Tutu, of the true nature of such neutrality.  Neutrality too easily leads to a denial of justice and a failure to love and respect others.  Silence and neutrality were inappropriate in the South Africa of the 80s when the struggles for justice were at their height.  They are also incongruous today, especially in the Church where we look for passionate leadership and action instead of the weak indecisive leadership we so often encounter. The new word invented in the past few days, ‘Tutufication’, is a summary of what we look for from our Church leaders inspired by the example of ++Tutu.  In the place of the culture of silence, neutrality and managerialism, we look for integrity, confident truth telling and freedom from fear among our church leaders.   We also look for passionate concern and support for the victims and survivors of power abuse.   Those who live under the stress of a malicious CDM are also sufferers every bit as much as the victims of apartheid.  Neutrality, silence and failures of integrity are all profoundly damaging to the Church.   Sadly, there are many who have opted for detached indecisive behaviour.  This is far from the passionate identification with an institution that we find among football fans.   We might have hoped to find a measure of such passion among the leaders of the Church of Christ.

At the beginning of 2022 we find the Church of England in a state of considerable crisis.  It has been implicated in a number of abusive events and at the same time it has been singularly unsuccessful in convincing the victims of these horrors (or the watching world) that it knows what to do to put things right.   In summary, the Church leadership does not seem to understand how to deal with the shame that inevitably attaches itself to an institution when things go wrong.  Our Scriptures, nevertheless, do fully understand the meaning of sorrow, contrition, sin and failure and how we can proceed from here.  We need to see evidence of all these to convince a watching public, that there is still a measure of passionate commitment to truth and justice in the Church and especially among its leaders.

The arrival of 2022 makes us very conscious of the future and what it will bring. There is one part of the Church of England facing definite changes with the imminent retirement of its Bishop: the Diocese of Winchester. I was considering what these changes might involve when I spotted an item on the American website, Anglican Ink.  It was about a senior appointment being made in the Diocese.  Dr Amy Roche, who already works in ministerial training in the Diocese, has been appointed Dean of Licensed Ministry training across the Diocese of Winchester.  The announcement of this appointment tells us that Dr Roche will be responsible for ‘the delivery of mission focused training … through the School of Mission’. Further, ‘she will develop the ministry training programme that helps grow the number of lay and ordained ministers in the Diocese.’

The announcement was delivered to the public and the American website through the agency of Luther Pendragon (LP), the reputation management company.  Given the fact that this firm has achieved a certain notoriety in the Church of England for assisting the malcontent dons in their vicious persecution of the Dean of Christ Church Oxford, I sensed that something was not straightforward.  I some time ago discovered that this communications firm, which is expert in crisis management, seems to be the go-to firm for the Church of England at a national level and the Diocese of London. A close relationship with the Diocese of Winchester was also apparently developed when the Diocese was having to deal with a deteriorating relationship with the Channel Islands parishes, which were then part of the Diocese.  Without attempting to describe the details of that affair, professional communications advice would have been required to deal with the unwelcome press publicity at the time.  Since that point, the services of LP seem to have been found useful and the firm is now a permanent feature of the diocesan structure.  The name of Ben Frankel, a senior LP partner, appears as the diocesan Director of Communications and all press enquiries are directed through him. The need to employ such a pricey London professional for the mundane tasks of writing uncontroversial press releases is suggestive of one of two things.  The first is that the Winchester diocese has found the services of LP so excellent that the senior staff prefer, unlike most other dioceses, to outsource this aspect of diocesan administration.  The second possibility is less flattering.  This is to suggest that senior staff in the Winchester diocese have found all their dealings with the press in the past so fraught and stressful that they prefer to have permanent access to one of the most prestigious damage limitation firms in the country.  The diocese certainly appears to be tied to LP through some sort of contract agreement. Why else would LP’s name appear in something as innocuous at +Debbie’s recent Christmas message? In all fairness, the crises in the diocese that have come into the public domain, particularly over the past six months, perhaps justify this expensive recourse to the skills of LP.

We return to the appointment of Dr Amy Roche as Dean of Licensed Ministry Training (LMT). I have had a look at some of the records of the Winchester School of Mission since it was founded at the instigation of +Dakin early in his episcopal ministry.  LMT is one part of the work of the school and it is very close to the heart of the Bishop’s vision for the diocese.  The Church of England Ministry Council produced an External Review Report in May 2019, and it is clear that this local home-grown scheme for training ministers, lay and ordained, is working well.  The inspectors had a few minor recommendations to make, but they seemed to approve of the standards of training being offered.  From the Council report, I was unable to discern how many are enrolled for ordination courses and how many are seeking to enter a licensed lay ministry.  The figure of seventy was mentioned in the course of the report and that presumably covers the total number of the students then under training.

 There are two points of caution to be noted at this point.  The first is that the Council inspectors observed in 2019 that the emphasis on mission was an episcopally-led impulse.  In other words, the ‘culture’ of the whole School of Mission was strongly tuned into the Bishop’s own priority for mission/evangelism.  This in turn would be linked back to his own early Christian ministry of teaching and evangelism which took place in the missionary setting of Kenya.  The imminent retirement of the Bishop in February next will leave a gap, and the impetus set by him for prioritising mission and evangelism will no doubt be affected.  The second point to be drawn is the mention of numbers in the recent LP press release.  It mentions that there are currently 42 students in training.  This is 28 fewer than in 2019 when the Ministry Council report was written. 

The numbers of individuals enrolled on a training scheme would not normally matter.  Cohorts of students coming forward for training will vary in size and one year’s shrinkage is made up in another year when there is an expansion.  But the situation at the moment is critical.  With the current bishop about to retire and the prospect of another bishop being swiftly appointed somewhat remote, the state of health of all +Dakin’s initiatives is a matter of concern.  Although the Winchester School of Mission’s schemes have achieved success in several areas, this initiative for mission is bound to lose momentum now that the Bishop can no longer offer his leadership and vision to energise the programmes and initiatives.  The main issue is money.  There are at least ten individuals named on the diocesan website as having responsibilities within the School of Mission.  This represents a huge human/financial investment which a future bishop may wish to modify.  In short, the question is this: Can the Winchester diocese really afford all the institutions and initiatives of the soon to be former bishop? As a further exercise I counted the people directly employed by the Diocese.  These amount to 72.  Not all will be full-time, but this number still represents a massive deployment of finite resources.  Will all these posts survive the arrival of a new broom?

Dr Roche seems a thoroughly decent and honourable person but even she must feel the icy winds that swirl round the future activities of the Winchester diocese.  Looking at the appointment from afar, the question arises, who was responsible for promoting her within the School of Mission structure?  She was already working as an assistant in the department, and many of the tasks she will be taking on could have been undertaken by her within her existing job description.  Meanwhile the final departure of +Dakin hangs over the whole diocese like a very dark cloud.  Questions like the availability of a decent episcopal candidate for the post in the future remain.  In the context of the acute financial woes apparently being experienced by the Diocese, does it make any sense at all to announce a senior appointment of this kind?  Surely everyone can see that a pruning knife is hanging over so many of what could be regarded as bloated structures within the diocese.  

Two final thoughts.  Is the timing of the appointment announcement so near Christmas aimed at attracting the least possible notice?  There must be many among the parochial clergy in the diocese who know someone who has lost paid employment and are acutely aware of what appear to be over-staffed structures at the centre.  Also, has anyone else noticed the irony of paying top rates to a London based communications director to announce the appointment of someone to head up a part of the School for Ministry?  It is likely that the Diocese of Winchester will have to retrench in a variety of ways in order to break even in the future.  One more senior appointment made now will make that process just a little more difficult for a future bishop.  I am reminded of a story when a Labour minister left a note for his Tory successor after a general election.  The note said something to the effect, there is no money left, we have spent it all!  Is such a message being sent by one bishop of Winchester to another?  In spite of the cessation of +Dakin from all duties in the diocese, are we witnessing his hand in a final exercise of episcopal patronage?  After all the sums expended on the Channel Islands shenanigans, the rumoured redundancies and accompanying NDAs, together with the hugely expensive setting up of all the mission initiatives, what is one small appointment in the scheme of things? 

by David Brown

As a layman who served on a Bishop’s Staff team for some 12 years, I am now privileged to hear testimonies of a number of priests, in some cases relating how they have been subjected to discipline by irregular process.  Such testimonies shed much light on the ‘underbelly’ of episcopal activity, showing how some bishops are destroying a vital leadership role within the nation.  This leads me to trumpet the need for an independent review of our Church’s episcopal culture and practice.

Here are three unnoticed—or ignored—signs of ongoing catastrophic leadership:

• Oversight.  A manifest impoverishment of oversight (over-seeing) allows serious episcopal frailties to develop.  There seems to be an inclination to believe any persuasive voice, lay or ordained, on the basis of hunch or an opinion of a criticised priest. The situation appears to be worse in cases where the accusations reflect the bishop’s personal opinion of a priest ‘under assault’, irrespective of whether or not those accusations can be substantiated with actual evidence.  Thus, in a worrying number of cases, bishops have not upheld the oaths they swore at their consecration, “to know their people and be known by them…. to use their authority to heal, not to hurt; to build up, not to destroy”’.  Committee work receives a greater priority over the essential task of listening to, understanding and enabling parish clergy to flourish in their ministries, some seriously overloaded and in tough and large benefices.  Some command a low priority on bishops’ time; ‘shepherds’ preferring to focus on their own priorities, in incessant higher profile committee work and centralised initiatives.
• Non-accountability.  Diocesan bishops are accountable to no-one apart from themselves, not least in their treatment of clergy.  Readers may be surprised to learn they have no line-accountability to an archbishop. This may have worked well in times past when there was a deservedly high level of trust between leaders and led. In today’s culture, signs appear of an accumulation of power over parish clergy that can lead to ministries and livelihoods being terminated without proper process.  This deficiency seems to be exacerbated by a lack of appropriate training and experience.  Their power over clergy, not least through disciplining, is immense and potentially destructive of ministries and livelihoods.  In some respects they have more power than magistrates who undergo careful selection, then substantial training and ongoing stringent oversight. Bishops wield the threat of the Clergy Discipline Measure as a weapon of control.  The rights accorded to all citizens of the United Kingdom to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights are frequently denied to members of clergy by the very people who should have the highest duty to ensure that these rights are rigorously assured.[41] 
• Professional disciplinary errors.  These generally come to the surface, not because of any oversight, but because a harmed priest has the energy, the advice, and probably the funds, to mount a legal challenge.  This has ‘worked’ with some of my clergy friends, one achieving a six-figure financial settlement, tied to Non-Disclosure or Confidentiality Agreements that even the Archbishops of Canterbury and York seem incapable of weaning their Bishops away from.  Such sums are squandered from diocesan funds, largely drawn from the free-will offerings of un-involved laity; sometimes supplemented by assets drawn from central funds supplied by the Church Commissioners.  These donors do not realise that their gifts are being used, not to spread the Good News of Christ, but to conceal the errors, incompetence and wilful misconduct of those to whom they have entrusted their donations. Should bishops come to fund such compensation personally in whole or part, many might judge this reasonable. The impact could be immense.  Furthermore, in Charity law, trustees of the diocese could have some liability.  The diocesan boards of finance (DBF) may be registered Charities and arguably vulnerable should the Charity Commission become aware of charitable fund misappropriation.  A structural difficulty arises when a diocesan bishop is the DBF chair.  Some DBFs are instead companies limited by guarantee, in which case members have a moral duty to call out fund misappropriation.

There thus seems an urgent need for an independent review of episcopal culture and practice; arguably so urgent and important that the 2022 Lambeth Conference should be postponed until it is carried out.  Meanwhile, without fair and Christian governance, the Church is unlikely to achieve its vision of being “simpler, humbler and bolder”. Where parish clergy cannot trust their bishops, they will be reluctant to step out in faith, becoming necessarily concerned at having to look back over their shoulders. Meanwhile, the current (widely discredited) procedures continue to be applied and create new ‘casualties’ amongst parish priests.

---

 [41]This is a very powerful point.

by Janet Fife

Christmas was sheer magic when I was very small. One of my earliest Yuletide memories is of being taken to see the decorations in downtown Philadelphia, where we then lived.  A department store devoted an entire window to Santa’s Workshop, complete with Christmas tree, piles of toys, automaton elves, and a small train chugging round a track. ‘Dance of the Sugarplum Fairy,’ from Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker, was piped to those of us outside. I was utterly entranced.  In 1956 I had never watched TV or seen a movie, so this display of colour, movement, and music made me feel I was actually in Fairyland.

Christmases continued to be magical after we moved to the Chicago suburbs. We had lovely decorations: paper chains, hundreds of cards stapled to red ribbons and hung from the picture rail, and a little carousel where gold angels circled over a tea light. Our tree ornaments were the most enchanting I’ve yet seen:  tinsel and angel hair; baubles in rich colours; red and blue ‘lanterns’ with whirligigs inside; coloured glass tubes of oil that bubbled as it warmed. Choosing and decorating the tree was a festive event for the whole family.

At Christmas1963 I had just turned 10, and we had our first TV.  One evening my father and I were watching it alone by our magical Christmas tree – were my mother and sisters out shopping? – and there was a Christmas special on. The now hackneyed items on it were vivid and fresh to me then. I stood and sang my heart out to ‘Silent Night’, and danced to ‘The Sugarplum Fairy’.  For a few minutes I was that enchanted three-year-old again. Then my father raped me, while the choir sang ‘how silently, how silently the wondrous gift is given’.

I’ve never publicly shared this part of my story before. I’m doing so now because it illustrates several useful points about survivors and our experience of church. 

The first and most obvious is that Christmas, with all its associated traditions and decorations, is not a happy time for everyone. This should be reflected in the way hymns are chosen, liturgy conducted, and intercessions led, mindful of those for whom this is not a season of abundance and rejoicing. It’s a classic case of afflicting the comfortable – who want to turn a blind eye to the suffering around them while indulging the myth of a baby who didn’t cry and a town rammed to the rafters but somehow silent and still – and comforting the afflicted, who feel less alone if they know that others care about their pain. This applies not just to survivors, of course, but to those who have been bereaved at Christmas, are lonely, enduring family conflict, or any number of other unhappy situations. Christmas is an intensifier which makes sorrows sharper and burdens heavier.

‘’The hopes and fears of all the years’ accumulate for the abused, for rarely are the fractures forgotten, and the misery completely mended,’ writes Lori Anne Thompson: ‘Christmas is a crushing time for so many survivors; a time when the chronic loss accumulates in an acute, exclusively Advent-like agony.…The hangover from this level of harm leaves hope like a Christmas cracker joke — useless and cheap.’ (https://loriannethompson.com/2021/12/14/as-advent-advances/)

The whole meaning of the Incarnation is that Jesus came to share all the ills that flesh is heir to. He was born with the stigma of illegitimacy, as one of a subjugated people, without even a cradle to sleep in, and from his infancy under the threat of violence. While still a young child he and his parents became refugees, aliens in a strange land, with all the discomfort and insecurity that entailed. No one ever understood him or his mission; ‘he came unto his own, and his own received him not.’ If we emphasise these aspects of the Christmas story, we will truly be preaching the gospel of Christmas and comforting his people.

My second point is that the effect of abuse on a survivor is heavily influenced by the context of the abuse.  At the most basic level, it should be understood that an incident which might be laughed off in one context, could be seriously traumatising in another.  ‘Anne’, writing in Letters to a Broken Church, describes two sexual assaults at the milder end of the scale. They were so psychologically damaging because they were inflicted by her training incumbent, a man who she should have been able to look to for spiritual guidance; they were intended to humiliate and demean her, and were carried out in the context of sustained bullying; and she was completely in his power regarding her job, housing, finances, and future in the Church. He was a man it was dangerous to resist or deny. The damage was further compounded when she complained to the bishop who not only refused to act, but informed the abuser of Anne’s complaint. Thus the church hierarchy as well as the incumbent became involved in the abuse, and the Church as well as the church became unsafe for Anne. There is no simple equivalent between the seeming severity of the actual physical abuse and the degree of psychological, spiritual, and emotional harm done.

Thirdly, the lasting effects on the victim will differ from one survivor to another, depending on many factors – including how otherwise stable their background is, and what therapy and support have been available – as well as the context of the abuse. Although finding Christmas difficult is common among those who have been abused, there are perhaps not so many who have panic attacks triggered by Christmas trees and ‘Silent Night’, as I used to. It took years of therapy, and good friends determined to ‘redeem Christmas’ for me, to moderate the panic into mere dislike. Other survivors will have different trigger points. One I know was abused by a man with the surname ‘Lord’, making it almost impossible for her to sit through a church service. It’s a good thing she has never encountered the kind of Christians who assume an inability to say ‘Jesus is Lord’ signals an urgent need of exorcism.

It follows that any ministry with and among survivors, at Christmas and always, must be conducted with sensitivity and the willingness to listen – and there are survivors in every congregation, every chaplaincy, every care home. There is no ‘one size fits all’ approach to working with those who have been abused.  As Jesus used a variety of methods when healing the sick, so must we be prepared to adapt to each survivor and their circumstances.

This sensitivity is sadly absent from the Church (at least, the Church of England) in most of its dealings with survivors, and is notably missing from its published material. Neither the Church of England’s Towards a Safer Church:  Some Liturgical Resources nor the Church of England Evangelical Council’s recent In Lament, Penitence, and Faith advises ministers to consult survivors in the congregation before planning such a service or selecting and using the material.

Both sets of resources lump together material on healing for survivors with penitence and lament, under the general head of Safeguarding. Neither includes advice on how to set up and introduce a service – not even the basic need to provide listeners or counsellors for those whose memories or emotions are stirred.

Elementary errors such as these could be avoided if the Church – that is, the bishops and the Church’s senior ciivl servants – were prepared to learn from survivors. Eight penitential seasons have now passed since I wrote to Archbishops Welby and Sentamu:

          ‘When you need to write a letter like the one we’ve just had, or to make a statement, run it past a survivor first. Most of us don’t want you to look uncaring and incompetent, we really don’t. We can help you to write sensitively, to respond appropriately, to offer assistance that will actually make a difference. Many of us have years of experience working with other survivors; researching; struggling with the theological and spiritual implications of being abused. Some of us can even contribute liturgical material you might find useful. We survivors offer a resource for the Church that you need badly. Don’t continue to despise it.’ (http://survivingchurch.org/2018/03/25/survivors-reply-to-archbishops-pastoral-letter/)

We are told that they do consult survivors, but it’s odd that it’s never any of the many survivors I know or their survivor contacts.

In that open letter to the archbishops I quoted Jesus’ dictum in the Sermon on the Mount:  ‘when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift. (Mt. 5:23-24)

Eight penitential seasons, and our leaders still cannot humble themselves to learn from survivors, or to engage in any meaningful repentance for the harm done them.   Eight penitential seasons, and our leaders still continue to offer their gift without attempting to be reconciled with the Church’s victims. So, this final week of Advent 2021,

‘‘Speak not, unless you can sing the song of sorrow into the silence of night. It is in this sacred space that even a match is meaningful to the miserable.  (Lori Anne Thompson).

submitted by an Anonymous Contributor

                          National Safeguarding Team of the Church of England

                                                               Entrance Exam

Time Allowed: 3 hours                                                             Long Term Winter, 2022

Please make sure you use all sides of the paper. All questions must be answered.  No cheating permitted, although you can have extra time to ‘phone a friend, use Google, etc.  Calculators, dictionaries and other reference aids are allowed, provided you know how to use them.  Please remember this is ‘Formative Assessment’ leading to the eventual ‘Summative Assessment’.  Applicants who manage to meet the criteria in the overall ‘Summative Assessment’ will be deemed to have qualified.  Those who don’t meet the bar (this time!) are able to continue as members of the Safeguarding (Ongoing) Learning Community, and continue with their day-to-day work (i.e., Head of Safeguarding Services, Director of Safety and Care Operations, etc.), until they qualify.  These questions are, as with previous years, almost identical, thereby ensuring our Continuity in Excellence.

Questions:

1.  The average length of service for a USA conscript in WW2 was 33 months.  The average length of time to work within Church of England safeguarding is:

           a:    A well-kept secret (due to high turnovers of staff).

           b:    Well-known by the CofE Office for National Statistics.

           c:    The same as WW2 (but loss-rates are higher in some Dioceses).

          d:    A moment to change the subject and talk about something else.

           e:    24 months, but it is good to keep the Team refreshed with new faces.

2.  A “Lessons Learned Review” ideally contains:

a:    All material that must remain confidential and can easily be burned.

b:   One lesson to note; but nothing we needed to learn.

c:    The difficult things going on here we are not allowed to discuss.

d:    Forward-looking retrospective reflections on what change might look like….”.

         e:    All names of senior diocesan personnel redacted to comply with GDPR.

3. Maths Puzzler: Safeguarding Algebra.  If X = the value of Safeguarding Culture; Y = the actual personnel and resources available; Z = the specified (hyper-inflated) competency required to maintain the value of X; A*+ = the ideal conditions for functioning; and B^- = the actual contextual conditions at that time; and C = “Best Practice”, then calculate the following:

a. X/10 + Z/C – (Y)/110% (C+B)

b. 10/X – 7+Y (-A*+- C) + 50%/B^.

c. Turning your calculator upside down, then get as close as you can to making the word ‘safeguard’ using any numbers.

d. Why Google always crashes at this point.

e. Is this moment for a short coffee break?

4. The definition of a Vulnerable Adult in the Care Act (2016) is very carefully set out. In the NST, however, being a vulnerable adult is:

a. Someone feeling a bit rubbish today and slightly below par (temporarily vulnerable)

b. Anybody claiming to be one (must exclude all clergy).

c Anyone with pastoral needs of any kind.

d. Another means of complaining about clergy, and launching a CDM.

e. Complicated and not easy to define (see Core Group question later), which is why we have the NST to help these puzzles.

5. There are 120 serving Bishops in the Church of England. On average at any one time, how many have CDMS against them? Is it?

a. None. Don’t be silly! Bishops above such things.

b All of them. Bishops get complained about an awful lot.

c. 10, 20, 30, 40; or more?

6. How many Bishops “step aside from ministry” whilst a CDM against them is heard?

a. None. Don’t be silly! There would be no Bishops left.

b . They do what all clergy are made to do, and step aside. (Honest)

c. None; and you really do need to change the subject.

7. How many Safeguarding Staff are working for the Church of England?

a. Around 190.

b. Around 230 .

c. Hard to count, because they keep moving on or going off on sick-leave.

d. More that we had last week. But might be less next week with resignations.

e. About half.

8. In not less than 300 words, try and describe the Safeguarding Culture of your diocese (NB extra marks are awarded for “word power showers”, using terms like safe, secure, proactive, anticipative, extensive, impact, etc)

9. What response would you normally get to an Urgent Safeguarding Request?

a, “I am currently out of the office….. if your matter is urgent please …..”

b. “Your call is important to us and you are currently being held in a queue; please hold while we try to connect you. Alternatively, leave a message with your number, and we will get back to you as soon as we can.

c “You will need to fill in this form.”

d “We are currently tied-up working on new policy guidelines”.

e. All our staff are out of the office on a training day”. (paint-balling bonding session).

10. Safeguarding should be at the top of every agenda on every PCC, Deanery Synod and Diocesan Synod reminds you of:

a. McCarthyism and “Reds under the Bed” being feared in Kentucky and Kettering.

b. “Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty”, which is why we come down so hard on anyone accused of anything, especially the clergy (but not Bishops or important Evangelical leaders, NB: not to be named in person).

c. The importance of of suspecting anyone of anything – Think “Neighbourhood Watch meets Salem Witch Trials”. OK, mistakes were made (in several regrettable cases) but everyone was much safer and slept more soundly as a result (unless you happened to be a suspect of some sort!)

d. The importance of putting the cat out before you lock up and go to bed.

e. How self-important safeguarding has become, although we still don’t understand how it ever developed like this.

11. The following shall be subject to Safeguarding Risk Assessments before the event or experience occurs

a. A bereavement visit (a potentially vulnerable person).

b Any Service involving any child. (NB includes Nativity Plays!)

c. Any meeting involving any person who might decide they are vulnerable.

d. Church Services which can, during worship, mean people do drop their guard a bit.

e. Clergy meeting anyone about anything, anytime, anyplace, anywhere.

12. In not less that 500 words, describe the Safeguarding Priorities, targets and goals in your Diocese for the next year. (NB: extra marks available for maps drawn, flowcharts, ‘hotspots’ identified, potential risks to be managed, opportunities for growth, and practical tips on how to promote the Culture of Fear that keeps Safeguarding at the top of everyone’s agenda, where it belongs.

13, If the answer is “43“. what was the question?

a. The most accurate estimate of children the Prime Minister has sired?

b. The maximum number for a Covid-compliant “gathering” at Downing Street with cheese, wine, games and Secret Santa, but without it being technically a “party”?

c. The number of times Boris says “look what the British people wants to hear is …” to deflect awkward questions during a BBC interview.

d. The number of new visionary ideas per night the Archbishop has for reforming the Church of England.

e. The actual number of serving Bishops in the Church of England currently with a live CDM against them. (see question 5, c)

14. Using the graph paper provided, plot the course of NST development over the next five years. You will need to set out the hypotenuse carefully, and using the formula for calculating critical mass and three dimensional area-density, establish the following:

a. At what point on your graph does safeguarding consume absolutely everything, but without creating an interstellar black hole?

b. Having located this point on your graph, explain how safeguarding can be at the centre of everything, on top of everything, underpinning everything, and also surrounding everything in the CofE, “in order to keep everyone safe”?

c. Where on the graph should your bible study and theological reflection about safeguarding be put? Everywhere; left outside; right outside; or other?

d. Using the numbers from question 3 a and 3 b, you should be able to identify the approved Bible passages for safeguarding training. For example, “24.7” could be Luke-Acts. But 100-1 is not biblical, and probably belongs to the Bhagavad Gita or The Book of Mormon. It might also be the Radio 4 tip for ‘Christmas Surprise’, running in the Boxing Day 2.30pm Steeplechase Meet at Lincoln.

e. Your graph paper should now reveal a labyrinth diagram on the right side of the hypotenuse. Using your red pen, calculate how quickly you can escape (on foot)!

15. Core Group Teaser.  NB: please circle in red pen the deliberate mistake(s) that don’t conform to this NST Policy and Guidelines FAQ Fact-Sheet:

“We are aware that some people receiving a letter from the NST without any warning may find the contents initially disturbing.  Your allocated pastoral support person has been provided to help with any concerns you may have.

We have also produced this brief list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), and we anticipate that the answers to these FAQs will help to allay any misgivings you might have about the process you have now begun.

• Who will pay my legal fees?

This is not a legal process, so there should be no legal expenditure that you need to meet. We cannot be held responsible for any legal fees you may decide to incur.

• Should I get some legal representation, just in case I need support?

There is no need, as the NST, Core Groups and Investigators do not usually consult with lawyers during an investigative process and when making their determinations.

• You mention Core Groups.  Are the people on these trained?

No. They don’t need to be. They have all the PR and other skills needed to manage this situation, and you have pastoral support, so you don’t have to worry.  We don’t use lawyers or other specialists on the group, as it is not that kind of panel. The Core Group will communicate with you in due course, though the timing and content of any communications will vary. Minutes are taken, but these are confidential.

• What if my Core Group has bias, or conflicts of interest?

This is the Church of England, so we strive for balance and fairness.  We are moving towards training in unconscious bias, and adopting a conflicts of interest policy.

• Am I in some kind of Trial Proceedings?

No.  The NST, Core Group and our Lead Investigators do not have a role in establishing your guilt or innocence. Our role is to find out what happened, and what or who may be at fault.  Once the investigation is concluded, it may be that the recommended decision of the Core Group is your loss of licence, suspension, barring from ministry; or perhaps cleared.

But please do remember, these processes are not trial proceedings, which is why you do not need any legal support. We are just deciding on your future fitness to work in ministry, or be within 200 yards of a school, and that sort of thing.  You really don’t need legal advice for this.

• Are these Lead Investigators regulated?

No. They are mostly former police officers, so utterly reliable and above reproach.  The Lead Investigators are not formally trained in safeguarding, regulated, licensed or accountable to anyone, and tend to be self-employed, running their own business as consultants. However, this is offset by the clergy who are being investigated: because they are trained, regulated, licensed and accountable.

• What if the Investigation was or is being mishandled?

It won’t be. You should refer any concerns you may have to the NST. However, the NST cannot engage with anyone under investigation until the Core Group process is completed.

• What if I disagree with the decision or verdict you reach?

Our investigations are thorough, and we strive to be balanced and fair.

• Is there an Independent Chair I can appeal to, like an Ombudsman?

The Independent Chair is only able to look at the processes, guidelines and their general implementation, and cannot comment or adjudicate on any individual cases. You can refer any of your concerns to the NST.

• Is there a right of appeal to any decision?

You can refer any concerns you have back to the NST, or refer the matter on to your Bishop or Archdeacon, unless they were involved in the original claim against you.  If they were, then you may want to consider alternative avenues.  We have provided you with an allocated pastoral support-person as a resource, who might be able to advise further.

• Is there any point, or any hope?

We cannot advise you on such matters. However, your allocated support person will listen to any concerns you may have.

• Do Say: Well, the Church of England has come a long way on this journey already, and it is good to know that things are heading in the right direction.

• Don’t Say: Didn’t George Orwell predict this sort of thing in Nineteen Eighty-Four?

16. Melissa and Zena – random names from the NST Sorting Hat – can make a nice phonetic anagram. “Zan-E Assile-M” (pronounced Zany Asylum. In this final ‘Fun with Words‘ question, solve the puzzles against the clock by circling the right answer in red.

a. NST is also an anagram of : No Such Thing, No Sign of Thinking; No Stone Turned; National Systemic Travesty; Notorious Senseless Theorising, Never a Sodding Thought; other?

b. Core Group is a term for : approximation; general use, varying from place to place and time to time, depending on the situation in hand, etc., fluid, binary, defined and opaque (yes all of these!); deep reassurance when written down on paper, but hard to make without the right bits and pieces, people and instruction; re-abuse.

c. ‘Safeguarding’ in the Church of England first appeared in a novel by: George Orwell; J.R.Tolkien; Dante; Stephen King; J.K.Rowling; Franz Kafka; Bram Stoker; Margaret Attwood; Machiavelli; Ron Hubbard.

Congratulations on completing your NST Entrance Exam

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.