!st part of a three part enquiry

by Hatty Calbus

        In a blog which aims to cover the topic of power in the Church, it is a matter of note that I have not felt qualified to carry any examination of one clear focus of power in the C/E, Holy Trinity Brompton. The author of the following critique, Hatty Calbus, gives us a well informed account of the way that HTB, its theology and money, has not only come to dominate the evangelical/charismatic network but increasingly the entire Church of England. It is not necessary to agree with all the conclusions of these three articles to realise that any church or network exercising so much institutional power needs to face challenge and questioning. Is the wider CofE really prepared to allow HTB to define such things as clerical formation, liturgical practice and the necessary skills associated with pastoral work? Already there are a substantial number of clergy, whose sole experience of church is what they have learned from the HTB network. Thus traditional Anglicanism is for them unfamiliar territory and they may find it hard to operate within the pastoral/liturgical roles which have existed in England for several centuries. – Ed

There are two significant aspects of Holy Trinity Brompton (HTB) that are not well known enough, but which are significant. The first, of which there is some awareness, is the enormous, subsuming influence it has acquired. The second is what has influenced it to a similarly large extent which is now influencing the wider Church.

          I shall try to make clear first the extent of its influence in the wider Church of England. Nicky Gumbel was Vicar from 2005 till 2022 and is still involved with the Alpha course he made into the international, interdenominational phenomenon it has become (over twenty-four million attendees). Because of its success and the consequent numbers attending HTB – ten Sunday services there and in what were nearby parishes, now referred to as HTB ‘sites’ – it was asked to start ‘planting’, that is sending curates and groups of parishioners to revive churches with small congregations. Because of the success of that, it was rewarded with a huge role in halting Church decline via, since 2017, its charity, the Church Revitalisation Trust, now the Revitalise Trust. https:// revitalisetrust.org/plants-and-revitalisations Andrew Graystone, author of Bleeding for Jesus about the –  continuing – John Smyth abuse scandal, has recently reported on the controversial multimillionaire Sir Paul Marshall and his very large financial contribution to the Revitalise Trust. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/media/65007/paulmarshalls-hateful-likes-make-him-unfit-to-be-a-media-mogul  To quote Graystone: “HTB is already by some distance the richest parish church in the UK. It has a budget of around £10m a year and a staff of 118, making it larger than several Church of England dioceses. Most parishes in the Church of England struggle to afford a curate. HTB has 28. In addition, there are no fewer than 14 ordinands—people in training to be priests or ministers. Together with four ministers, that totals 46 in leadership or training roles for one parish.”

          As well as ‘planting’ churches nationally, it creates ‘resource churches’ and ‘hubs’ like itself. The literature says this type of church “resources mission across a city, by planting and revitalising churches, developing leaders and providing other resources for mission.” The Archbishops’ Council sees this as the way forward for the Church of England. In 2019, John Spence, then chairman of the Strategic Investment Board, used the phrase “good value for money, good value for Christ” – in that order, which does seem to suggest favouring a business approach to salvation. https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/ articles/2019/22-november/features/features/revitalising-mission-but-at-what-cost

      According to the 2021 Chote review, more than half (£91.3 million) of the Church of England’s total Strategic Development Fund (SDF), now Strategic Mission and Ministry Investment (SMMI), awarded between 2014 and 2021 was given either to new resource churches or to turning existing churches into resource churches. Of that, the Church Times reported that “14 percent of funding has gone to projects exclusively made up of plants from the Church Revitalisation Trust (CRT) network linked to Holy Trinity Brompton, and a further 29 per cent has gone to projects where CRT churches are present among those of other networks and traditions https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2022/11march/news/uk/strategic-development-fund-opens-a-route-to-faith-says-study Most resource churches’ ‘planting curates’ have been or are being trained at HTB. Within the HTB network are more than 100 congregations, plus over [30] larger resource churches. https://www.htb.org/sunday-talks-archive/2021/10/5/its-time-to-rebuild-nickygumbel-htb-live-stream?rq=Nicky%20Gumbel%20

       The Save the Parish campaign and, in her book The Once and Future Parish, Alison Milbank, have demonstrated theological and practical problems with this. Objections include downgrading the traditional parish, prioritising quantification, an urban focus, crude dismissal of sacramental spirituality –  many resource churches are Evangelical – loss of parishioners for neighbouring churches and high handedness with the churches being planted.

     The Chote review acknowledged some of this. More money is now being given to Anglo-Catholic and rural churches. But very large sums are still being given to resource churches. According to Bishop Ric Thorpe of Church Planting, “By 2030, there may be as many as 300 resource churches playing their part in the renewal and reform of the Church of England.” In a letter to the Church Times in 2023, General Synod member RG Faulkner said that “the Archbishops’ Council has promised to provide an extra £100 million per annum to the dioceses for the period 2023-25. Informal discussions that I have had with bishops indicate that it will be spent solely on more resource churches” (my italics). And the Chote review, very much using the language of the business world, states, ““Given the professionalism, shared services support and track record of that [HTB] stable, it is hardly surprising they are often the first port of call for a diocese seeking numerical growth relatively quickly. One key success factor has been CRT’s ability to leverage lessons to both develop and replicate its model.”

       I have given this background to demonstrate the centrality HTB’s methods have acquired in the Church of England and how much is being invested in those methods spiritually and financially, with the two aspects brought disconcertingly close together.     

       According to Graystone, the income of the Revitalise Trust for 2020 was £10 million. Its trustees include, along with Nicky Gumbel, Paul Marshall and former Bishop of London Richard Chartres – with his controversial safeguarding record. There are also half a dozen hedge fund managers and investment bankers. Marshall co-founded GB News and is aiming to buy the Daily Telegraph and Spectator. He was recently found to have liked and retweeted anti-Muslim tweets, including in January: “If we want European civilization to survive we need to not just close the borders but start mass expulsions immediately.” The charitable interpretation of this extreme position is that it shows the strength of his feeling for his Christian faith, though of course his is a very particular type of Christian faith: top-public-school, self-confident Charismatic Evangelicalism, as found at HTB, where he and his wife have been members for many years. In a part of London thick with millionaires and billionaires, it is a church where the ease of upper and upper middle class life can get confused with signs of God’s favour.

          Graystone observes, “It will not be lost on [Justin] Welby and his colleagues that the evangelical movement and its supporters are, to an extent, bankrolling the church, and that to lose them would be financially disastrous.” He describes HTB without exaggeration as “the engine room that now drives the Church.” For one parish to have such great influence on the wider Church could only be acceptable if that were by reason of its sanctity. That it is doing so because of its very wealthy members is problematic, to say the least – however convinced the patrons and clients are that they are carrying out God’s Will with their money. But what should ring even louder alarm bells is what has been the great influence on HTB: the American megachurch movement and, deriving from that, Hillsong: the Australian church even wealthier than HTB and now disgraced. This influence is spreading, via the Revitalise Trust and its resource hubs and plants, a confident fusion of Anglicanism with megachurch – ideology seems a more appropriate word than theology, as worldliness pushes ‘theos’ – God – out. And with that influence comes the serious potential for abuse inherent in its type of power. In my next article I shall look at Hillsong in more detail and show how relevant it has become to the Church of England.

by Charles Clapham

Like many others, I have been following the unfolding and tragic saga of Mike Pilavachi and the abuse at Soul Survivor as it has been come to light over the last year: the coverage in the Telegraph, the Soul Survivors podcast from Premier Christianity, the video Let there be Light from Matt and Beth Redman, and online discussion on blogs and social media, as well as the official responses and investigation from the Church of England.

Whilst many church leaders still seem to be silent – not realising that their continued silence is part of the ongoing trauma and abuse – others are beginning to recognise the need for honest reflection. What went wrong? Why did we not see it? How can we make sense of it all?

In one way, it’s not my place to comment. I’m a vicar in a liberal and inclusive-minded church, and a longtime advocate for full LGBT equality in the church. I am not part of Soul Survivor or the movement surrounding it, and conversations about what went wrong are a matter for those associated with the evangelical-charismatic movement in the church.

But not entirely. By background, I came originally from a conservative evangelical church, and was converted through the charismatic movement. It’s what brought to me faith as a young person. I know the culture from the inside. Even after I’d left the charismatic movement behind, I attended Soul Survivor briefly in the late 2000s whilst a university chaplain and was very aware of its considerable impact on many of the students with whom I worked. On top of which – as is now drummed into us all in our training – safeguarding is a matter for everyone in the church.

So perhaps it is helpful from an outside perspective to say this: that what I find striking in the coverage of Mike Pilavachi that I’ve come across so far, is that the nobody seems to want to talk out loud about the homoerotic character of some of the abuse (the good-looking young men, the wrestling and massaging). It’s all there in the reports, hinted at or implied, but never made explicit. And that calls for comment.

As an outsider, the obvious inference is that Mike Pilavachi is gay, but that he was living in a church culture in which he was not able to acknowledge this openly to others – or perhaps even to himself. Instead, he sought sexual gratification through close physical contact (wrestling, massage) with a constant stream of good-looking young men. At some point he had decided that physical intercourse or mutual masturbation would be wrong; but he otherwise sought to push as close to this line as possible.

This seems to me the most plausible reading of the situation. But in discussions of the Soul Survivor scandal in evangelical circles, this issue of sexuality is never raised. Nobody says this out loud. And this is true also for some of the other big abuse scandals in the church in recent years: Peter Ball, John Smyth, Jonathan Fletcher – all engaging in abuse of a homo-erotic character, but unacknowledged as such, whilst operating in a church culture in which being gay was/is seen as unacceptable. Why can we not speak about this?

Of course, at one level people will rightly say that the issue of homosexuality is irrelevant here. Abusers are abusers irrespective of sexual orientation; abuse is about power and not about sex. In addition – and I want to say this very clearly –  there is and should be no suggestion that gay people are more likely to abuse than heterosexuals.

But there is a more subtle point, which was flagged up by IICSA (the Independent Inquiry into Child Abuse), which needs teasing out. The issue is NOT that gay people are more likely to be abusers, as IICSA made very clear, but that a church in which honest acknowledgement and expression of homosexual identity is denied, creates a culture of secrecy around issues of sexuality more generally, which can then facilitate abuse. ^[1]

As Rowan Williams said in his submission to IICSA: “Where sexuality is not discussed or dealt with openly and honestly, there is always a risk of displacement of emotions, denial and evasion of emotions, and thus a lack of any way of dealing effectively with troubling, transgressive feelings and sometimes a dangerous spiritualising of sexual attraction under the guise of pastoral concern, with inadequate self‑understanding.”

This can become compounded by the fear that even raising the issue of sexuality in these cases will be seen as homophobic. As IICSA again noted, this is a concern shared by conservatives as much as anyone else. As Mrs Hind told the inquiry, the well known anti-homosexual view of Bishop Wallace Benn “made him bend over backwards to be fair, or perhaps even more than fair on occasion, to homosexual abusers.”

One contribution towards improving safeguarding in the church according to IICSA, therefore, was to encourage “clear, open and transparent conversation regarding human sexuality.” There are connections, in other words, between how we approach issues of human sexuality in the church, and our safeguarding failures. A culture in which sexuality has to be hidden can create safeguarding problems, and we need to have joined up thinking here.

But these are issues which the Church of England at large (and not just in its evangelical-charismatic wing) have failed to address. As Judith Maltby notes in a paper she produced for National Safeguarding Steering Group, despite these concerns being raised by IICSA (and by the Moira Gibb report, and by the Carmi review before that), the Church of England has still failed to find a forum in which to address the connections between safeguarding and sexuality. ^[2] The powers-that-be are simply too nervous to go there.

But if we are serious about addressing safeguarding issues as we reflect on Soul Survivor, we need to have this public conversation. It is the elephant in the room. One of the crucial questions about Soul Survivor is: why did Pilavachi not feel able to come out as a gay man, and how can we change that culture in the future?

I am not really a fan of evangelical organisations like Living Out, since they want to propose celibacy as the norm for all gay Christians, rather than see it as a vocation for some (which would be my view). But Living Out are at least providing a structure of support for people who are gay in the evangelical world to come out, to live honestly, and strive for celibacy in accordance with their convictions. Had Pilavachi been able to acknowledge his sexual orientation publicly in this fashion, that would at least have provided much clearer systems of accountability for him, and greater ability to spot red flags.

What would have happened if Pilavachi had taken this option? In theory, it was the right thing for him to do as an evangelical. In practice? My guess is that most of those in the evangelical-charismatic world would not have been willing to accept an openly gay man, even one publicly committed to celibacy, in his role as mentor and pastor to their teenagers and young people. They would, I imagine, have applauded him for his honesty – and then quietly let him go. And Pilavachi must have known this.

This, then, is part of the problem IICSA identified: an church which discriminates against gay people fosters a culture of silence and denial with regard to sexuality, and opens the way for an unhealthy and abusive culture to develop as a result.

To which we might add: that if evangelical and charismatic Christians were more willing to recognise that there are LGBT people in their communities even when they aren’t ‘out’, they might more quickly have been able to spot the signs of abuse in this case. Had Pilavachi been massaging half-naked attractive young women, those around him would instantly have seen this as inappropriate and abusive. But in the heteronormative culture (to use the jargon) of evangelical Christianity, it was simply assumed that Pilavachi must be heterosexual: how could he not be? So his abuse went unremarked (‘Mike being Mike’).

The possibility that a key evangelical leader, so effective at bringing young people to Christ, could also be gay, was – literally – unthinkable or unimaginable to most evangelicals and charismatics. So they failed to spot it, even when all the signs were there.

So if we genuinely want to reflect on the systems and cultures which facilitate abuse, doesn’t part of the conversation about Soul Survivor and Pilavachi needs to be about how evangelical culture handles homosexuality? Unless we can at least name some of these issues out loud, we are not going to make progress in preventing more scandals in the future. It’s awkward, delicate and controversial, I know. But we have to go there.

Of course, I say this as an outsider, and someone who identifies with the ‘inclusive’ side in the church. I will be criticised as one of the usual liberal suspects, cynically ‘weaponising’ the Soul Survivor victims to advance a pro-LGBT agenda in the church. Or I’ll be attacked from the other side: with the accusation that even raising these issues openly is homophobic or discriminatory. I can understand both concerns. But this is why no-one talks about it.

So I offer these comments not only to evangelicals and charismatics but to the Church of England at large. There are homoerotic elements to Pilavachi’s abuse, as there were in the cases of Peter Ball, John Smyth, and Jonathan Fletcher before him; all occurring in a church culture in which open gay identity and expression were seen as unacceptable and sinful. IICSA identified this as a problem. Are we finally able to have an honest conversation about it? Or is it simply a matter of time before another scandal, with all the same elements, breaks again?

Revd Dr Charles Clapham

Vicar, St Peter’s Church

Hammersmith, London

^[1] For what follows, see section B.11 on the ‘Culture of the Church’ of Anglican Church Case Studies 1, available at https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports-recommendations/publications/investigation/anglican-chichester-peter-ball/case-study-1-diocese-chichester/b11-culture-church.html, accessed on 25.4.2024)

^[2] Dr Maltby’s paper is now available at https://viamedia.news/2024/04/24/safeguarding-living-in-love-and-faith-learning-for-the-church-of-england-from-the-independent-inquiry-into-child-sexual-abuse-lessons-learned-reviews1/, accessed on 25.4.2024.

Many, perhaps most, of my readers will have watched the powerful video featuring Matt and Beth Redman entitled ‘Let There Be Light’. I don’t propose to analyse all the comments made by the Redmans about their experiences of working alongside Mike Pilavachi at Soul Survivor.  But there was one telling remark made by Matt when he was recounting the difficulty of reporting Mike’s abusive behaviour to those in authority in the Church. The comment that came back, when Matt took the courageous and difficult task of disclosure about a close colleague, was something to the effect of ‘that’s just Mike’. In other words, the response of a senior churchman to a serious disclosure of abuse was to trivialise it and try to laugh it off.  It needs hardly to be said that such a comment was insensitive and inappropriate.  The jokey response failed Matt and, at the same time, it was failing many others in the organisation who were vulnerable to the predatory activities of Mike P.

Individuals who fail in their obligation to take action to stop abuse within an organisation are guilty of serious neglect.  The guilt of those who have positions of leadership, responsibility and oversight is proportionately far greater than the ordinary members within a structure who have little power or influence.  When scandals break in most secular organisations, the people at the top attempt to ‘do the right thing’ by resigning.  This never seems to happen in the Church of England   There appears to be a culture of hoping that the affair will blow over and that people will forget the role of shepherds who did so little to protect the sheep.

The church leader/trustee? who uttered those four words ‘that’s just Mike’ may never have pondered the likely damage caused to the Redmans, nor would he have considered the unhappiness and pain that was being unleashed on their future ministry by this inaction.   The considerations that could possibly have entered the leader’s mind might have included one or more of the following.

1. There is first the sheer hard work of taking someone to task for what may be criminal behaviour.  Even if the behaviour reported does not constitute an actual crime, there may still be the need to cooperate with the police, solicitors etc., not to mention the phalanx of lawyers who work for the Church.  The reason for laughing off a serious disclosure may simply be because the Christian leader knows that the path towards finding justice and closure for all involved is a long, tortuous and difficult process.  Does anyone really have the time to manage and see through all the work demanded?
2. The second reason for wanting not to be the one dealing with safeguarding complaints is that the likely respondent might be already known to the senior leader.  In an organisation like the Church, individuals often have large circles of people they know directly and others they know through friends.   Church networks, like the conservative evangelical world which is bound together by a shared experience of such things as Iwerne camps and university Christian unions, are not large.  Public-school boys, the kind that were favoured in the Iwerne camp culture, appear to retain their ‘clubbable’ nature, and their loyalties to the institutions that reared them are often maintained with great devotion.  Would an old boy of X school really be prepared to follow through with an accusation of someone with whom they played squash some thirty years before?  Strong networking is of course not just confined to the evangelical tribes; we find such behaviour in other groups such as dining clubs with church links like Nobody’s Friends.
3. One of the reasons for a reluctance to bring scandals into the awareness of the wider church group is the claim that the exposure of misdoing always damages the institution.  A frightened abused young woman might be told by a member of staff not to bring accusations of assault against a leader, for fear that it will damage the leader’s important ministry.  In fact, we see over and over again that the opposite is true.    Suppression of scandal over a period of time does unbelievable damage to an institution. Most people would say that they can accept the inevitability of serious misbehaviour by an individual from time to time.  It happens, but the institution can usually recover if the right protocols are followed. What is totally disastrous is the collusion of leaders in evil behaviour by refusing to expose it the moment they were first made aware. Cover-up is deeply corrosive to the reputation and integrity of the Church.  Last year we saw the imprisonment of Martin Sargeant, an unofficial ‘fixer’ for the Diocese of London.  It would appear likely that, to sustain his reign of dishonesty and the gradual theft of 5 million pounds from the diocese, he had gained the ‘see no evil’ cooperation of others, including members of the clergy.  It is also hard to see in the case of the corrupt bishop, Peter Ball, how he could have continued so long with his nefarious behaviour if he had not had the tacit support of others, including clergy and senior bishops.

These three suggested reasons for laughing off Matt’s disclosure of abuse and inappropriate behaviour -sheer unwillingness to do the necessary slog of upholding justice, bonds of friendship or acquaintance and the fear of compromising the institution in some way – are likely to persist in the church’s life.   The only solution, which will make these three impediments to justice impossible in practice, is the Professor Jay solution. That is the one that provides a completely independent structure for all safeguarding matters.  Returning back to Matt Redman’s failure to find help from the system of oversight in the Church of England, we sense an inertia and closed shop atmosphere that will typically always place loyalty to the institution above truth.  If that is the case, particularly among the senior members of the church, that will have a deeply corrosive effect on the life of the whole institution.  If we ever reach the point where an acquiescence in protecting the system becomes a qualification for high office, then the death of the whole structure becomes only a matter of time.    Young idealistic individuals will see the clerical profession, not as an opportunity to serve God’s people, but as the opposite, the gratification of a narcissistic need for status and power.  The sleaze of UK politicians has thinned out the ranks of good people seeking to enter Parliament.  If at any time young people see the clerical profession as a danger to their integrity, then the only ones still able to find fulfilment there will be those for whom integrity and honesty are of no concern.   If the Church has only such people as its leaders, is there any point in lay people becoming members?  One question in wide circulation in the 90s  was ‘is your church worth joining?’   In the case of a Church that tolerates its leaders ignoring the needs of the suffering and abused, the answer has to be resounding No!

Ecclesiology is one of those words that may be dropped into a conversation by a theological geek as a way of impressing or frightening an opponent.  Like many words containing the ending ‘ology’, its use appears to indicate some level of specialised knowledge on the part of the user.   In using the word here, I am asking my reader to understand the word at its simplest level.  I take it to mean what Christians say and have said about the nature and meaning of the word church. 

Many students of theology are surprised to discover that ‘church’, translating the Greek word ekklesia, is seldom used in a modern sense as a word describing an institution. More typically what we have in the New Testament are a variety of images like kingdom, communion or body to describe the new spiritual reality that the first disciples entered into as followers of their risen Lord.  They knew themselves to have a new identity being ‘in Christ’ and that identity was shared with those who belonged to Christ as they did   The words that they used to describe this new reality were typically words describing fellowship or close belonging.  We have, as mentioned above, the famous body image in Paul’s understanding and the equally powerful word ‘koinonia’ or fellowship.  Both these latter words, among other images are articulating an experience of what we might today describe as the ideal of Christian belonging.  This, then as now, is at the heart of what many Christians identity as being the most important element of their religious experience. 

The other dimension being described in our normal modern use of the word church picks up the more institutional aspects of the organisation that had come into being as the result of the Jesus event.  While the beginnings of what we would call church order were beginning to appear in the pages of the New Testament, most of the institutional structures of the church would not appear for a hundred years or so. The fully formed identity of the Church, with buildings, formal authorised legal structures, the accumulation of wealth and the emergence of a legally defined hierarchy was by no means a given development in the early days of the Christian movement.  The emperor Constantine may have made the Christian Church the official faith of the whole Roman world, but that privilege was gained through the Church allowing itself to become the tool of imperial political ambition.  This debate about whether the Christian Church gained though its identification with Roman political institutions is not a debate I wish to enter on here.  Suffice to say at this point is that what Christians understood to be the Church in 340 AD (or 1500) was a creature very different from anything that Jesus or Paul could have imagined. 

Writing about historical events in such a generalised way is a dangerous activity, particularly if the reader senses that it is being done to make a church political point.  I hope I am not doing this, but I am seeking to suggest that when any Christian speaks about the Church, he or she is mentally placing themselves somewhere along a continuum for understanding the word.  Some Christians will feel far more at home with the subjective experience of church suggested by the word koinonia or fellowship; others in contrast will prefer to be identified with more structured institutional expressions of church that appeared later on in church history.  It is of possible to identify with both forms of understanding but most Christians will choose to identify with a reasonably consistent place along our imagined continuum.  That preferred place will want to give honour to the biblical subjective experience of church while honouring the more formal aspects of its life.  At some risk of over-generalisation, I would suggest that traditional Catholics, with their strong grasp of tradition and order, are likely to be found at the institutional end of the spectrum while ‘biblical’ Christians will prefer the opposite end – the place of informality and freedom from over-defined structures.

What I have written so far is a somewhat lengthy introduction to an exploration of the idea that ecclesiology, or doctrines of the Church, have the potential to abuse the members.  Both ends in our imagined continuum have particular risks in this regard.  The risk, in the case of institutional manifestations of Church, is that those who occupy places of authority within the structures can come to believe that they exercise a divinely sanctioned power.  To act in the name of God, whether though a special charism or as part of a legally ordained hierarchy is a heady claim.  In recent times the legal and institutional side of the Church of England has become more visible because of countless safeguarding cases.  Many of us have felt repelled by the way that the Church sometimes shows a face of self-protection mode with little expression of compassion.  While we need a system of institutional justice in the Church, there have been too many cases where the institution in its extreme formal mode, comes over to the observer as a cruel monster seeking to overwhelm any who would challenge its power.  As examples of this toxic power abuse administered by those paid to protect the institution, we may recall two notorious examples.  First there was the extraordinary battle between Julie McFarlane, a sexual abuse survivor and a professor of law, against the lawyers representing the Church.  It is hard to see how anyone other than a lawyer would have survived the aggressive questions on the part of the lawyers representing the Church.  She did prevail and her abuser went to prison, but without any evident support from the Church institution.  The other picture, indelibly engraved on our memories, is the sight of two archbishops at the IICSA proceedings refusing to apologise to Matt Ineson for the admitted failings of church protocols.  One surmises that they were both acting in accordance with legal advice.  When such advice takes precedence over gospel values, we may regard this as an example of a church operating abusively at the formal end of the continuum we have described.

The opposite end of the ecclesiological spectrum we have been describing is ‘church’ as a subjective experience of oneness.  In contrast to the perception of church as being about order and formality, the emphasis is here about feeling and merging.  Such subjective experiences can legitimately be read out of Paul’s descriptions of the new insights of Christians.  We do, however, recognise that a balance is required so that preservation of the integrity of the individual is never lost. Too much emphasis on right feelings by all can result in a kind is dissolving of the personality.  In a cult-like process the ability to make individual decisions becomes compromised and weakened.  In its most serious manifestations, the individual personality is destroyed.  Another serious danger for Christians who strongly identify with a subjective understanding of church is the problem of disagreement and dissent.  An individual who wakes up in time to recognise that his/her core personality is under attack, and thus seeks to leave, can be treated extremely cruelly by other members of the group.  I have written more than once about the abusive nature of ostracism in churches and cults.  Often the cruelty of exclusion is practised on those who publicly seek help after suffering serious bullying or sexual abuse.  Many Christians spend an unhealthy amount of time pushing away those whose beliefs and lifestyles are not approved of.  The Christian experience of feeling unity and intimacy can be easily turned around to act cruelly to those who fail to conform or question the rose-tinted version of reality put out by those in charge.

Abusive ecclesiology is a startling and disturbing juxtaposition of words.  This short piece may have alerted the reader to seeing that for some ‘church’ is a negative concept and it evokes the pain inflicted on them in the name of God who was believed to be all-compassionate and loving.  Sadly, the human beings who take leadership roles in the Church seem to be the ones who fail all too often.  While no one can solve the problem of church-induced suffering single-handedly, a blog of this kind can play a small part in demonstrating that someone somewhere understands this kind of behaviour.   At the same time, it is possible to provide a few hints on the way that we all can challenge the power of those who oppress others with the tools of Scripture and Tradition.  

UCCF again – some recent developments

Back in 2015, in the early days of the blog, I wrote a piece https://survivingchurch.org/2015/09/19/christian-unions-at-university-an-account/ which used a firsthand account of what a student reported about her experiences of membership of a Christin union at university.  The writer of the letter, Kirsty, had googled the words ‘damage caused by Christian union involvement.’  Google had thrown up an article of mine written on Surviving Church about CUs.  Apparently, this was, at that time, the only discussion on the topic easily available. From what Kirsty had to report there was a clear need to discuss the topic even if the internet generally had little to offer on the issue. Kirsty wrote of the ‘emotional and psychological residue’ that she was still trying to process fifteen years after her time at university.  She also spoke of ‘mixed feelings of sadness, pain and guilt around my involvement with this strand of Christianity.’  Alongside Kirsty’s description, which she graciously allowed me to reproduce in full, was my reply.    I confessed to her that the wider church beyond Christian unions and the conservative Christianity taught there often showed little understanding of the problems faced by those who, for whatever reason, fell out of sympathy with Christian union teaching.  I mentioned a particular issue with some conservative ideas about sin.  These could easily undermine self-esteem and the ability to love oneself.   

Looking back on my online conversation with Kirsty, I realise that what she was describing in 2015 is an issue that has never gone away.  Students at university are encountering the presentation of a religious message which, while it seems to liberate some, throws others into a form of depressive bondage.  From my liberal-catholic background, I share the belief that Jesus came to bring Good News, but I have never linked this gospel with a need to fight off constant feelings of gloom and despair.  One writer described the depressive state associated with some presentations of the Good News as an ‘evangelical anorexia nervosa’.  My own theological perspective has given me access to a journey of finding constant newness and adventure.  Over 2000 years, different cultures and races have thrown up an enormous range of Christian ideas in their attempt to make sense of Jesus Christ and his teaching.  For me there has never been a single unchanging version of the Good News.  The Christian faith and the good news contained in it comes in many guises and expressions.  We only need to have the barest appreciation of human language to know that every religious thought or belief is subtly varied according to the language and culture in which it is articulated.

The Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship (UCCF) has, over many decades, had a dominant role in the sharing of the Christian faith to students across Britain.  The expression of the faith that is articulated by this organisation is, as we have seen in the October 23 blog and the online conversation with Kirsty in 2015, a strongly conservative message.  UCCF is ‘successful’ in one notable way, in making its brand of Christianity far more prominent than any other.  No other organisation comes close to recruiting and supporting the dozens of young people who promote and organise the work of Christians unions in almost every centre of higher education in Britain.  The work has been going on over decades and, speaking generally, UCCF is responsible for much of the conservative evangelical culture found in many Church of England parishes.  UCCF does all this work independently and it is not under the control of any external denominational structure.  It has thus created its own distinctive way of doing things and it has done this without attracting attention to itself. Nevertheless, new episodes have disturbed the calm at UCCF over the past few months.  The first episode which we looked at in October was the suspension of two of the senior directors, Richard Cunningham and Tim Rudge, in December 2022.  The suspensions resulted in a report being made by a KC and this was received by the Trustees in June 2023. The event was marked by a number of apologies to the workers who had raised complaints, apparently about employment conditions.  Both directors were subsequently permitted to return to their posts.  We commented in the October blog on the way that whole episode had been marked by secrecy.  While we suspect that the problems at the organisation were to do with the non-observance of aspects of employment law, no explanation for the suspensions and reinstatements have ever been given.  There were, however, clear signs of unhappiness at the national headquarters of the organisation.  Over a fairly short period, half the trustees have resigned, including the chairman, Chris Wilmott.

Since October, three new events have emerged which add to the drama that surrounds this currently beleaguered organisation.  In February this year, a former worker and team leader, Nay Dawson, published an account of her part in creating the ‘unhealthy’ culture which ‘damaged’ employees.  Her words seem to have been inspired by the issue at the heart of the organisation – the conditions of employment for junior UCCF workers.  These have required the young employees to work under terms which appeared to be neither legal nor ethical.  The UCCF employment conditions expected all the young people who were salaried to work for a fixed period, three or five years.  They were then expected to resign to make way for a new group of recent students.  Employment law makes it clear that anyone who completes a probationary period in a job satisfactorily cannot simply be pushed aside to suit the needs of the organisation.  Nay realised that some of those under her who were being required to resign, were experiencing considerable distress at the inevitability of their departure.  She began to see that, in her role as team leader, she had been required to be part of this cruel enforcing process.   Her article which articulated her own pain and sense of regret was widely read and it created quite a stir on X/Twitter.  The article was exposing the secretive world of UCCF to open criticism which it would clearly wish to avoid.

If I had personally wanted to move on after my October 23 blog, the twitterverse, or whatever it is called today, made sure I was fully aware of everything going on in the past few months at UCCF.  Because my article was attached to many of the X discussions, my inbox was full of UCCF online chatter which was following this drama.  Almost all of it was critical of those in charge at UCCF.  Two further events followed Nay’s article.  This was publicised in Premier News.  Premier also reprinted a confidential internal UCCF document from 2009.  This set out the issues about UK employment law and how these could be made to fit with the actual practice at UCCF of requiring employees to move on after three or five years.  The message of the document had a hard edge to it and no concession was given to employees who might wish to extend their period of employment with UCCF.  Clearly the resignation of half the trustees was probably linked to the internal differences which Nay’s article was articulating, but nothing seems to have changed and certainly nothing has been made public.  Meanwhile one of the reinstated directors, Richard Cunningham, has resigned from his post and we are left to speculate the real reasons for his departure.

Nay’s article in the Premier magazine has been followed up by another letter from one Katie Norouzi.  This appeared on the 11^th March and supported all that Nay had said about the effect of her experiences of employment with UCCF as a staff worker.  Katie was called to an interview/appraisal with a senior member of staff which she felt was set up, even designed as a means to deliberately undermine and humiliate her.  The encounter seemed designed to crush her in such a way that Katie would feel compelled to resign.  In Katie’s words, she asked herself ‘did I have fundamental weaknesses that meant that I couldn’t do the job? Was I failing to serve Jesus well in the role he had given me?’

Katie’s story, which tells of the way that an organisation puts its own interests ahead of the people it was supposed to serve, reminds us of the CofE and its repeated failures in safeguarding.  UCCF has been able, for many decades, to avoid giving an account of itself to outsiders and also to those who work for it.  That may be about to change.  The events that have taken place since the suspension of the directors in December 2023 have created a situation which necessitates it bringing new blood into the organisation.   Those coming as a new Director or as trustees will each need to be briefed on what has taken place over the past 15 months.  They are unlikely to agree to serve in an organisation that has skirted illegality and maybe even colluded with financial misconduct.   Some hints of financial impropriety in the organisation have also leaked out.  No new official would want to be part of an organisation that may soon face scrutiny from the Charity Commission.  Change is in the air at UCCF. Their achievements over the past hundred years are remarkable and important.  Even if I have little sympathy for the theological vision that undergirds their efforts, it does not stop me having respect for the work that has been accomplished. Perhaps a new start the top will create a new healthy spiritual and open environment for UCCF.  The respect of outside Christian bodies is important and that will not be obtained unless UCCF makes a clear ethical response to the crises that the organisation has faced over the past months.

Our traditional end-of-season celebration of survival for the team, staff, directors and owner. All muck in and roll up their sleeves, making a real effort to get on with each other for just a few hours. This can offer one of the best family days’ out in the borough.  The stalls and attractions hardly change, which is part of the charm of this annual festive bash, always held on a sunny afternoon in late-May, just before the team decamps for their usual summer touring.

Included in Your Fete Programme This Year

(Entry Price: One Bitcoin, or a suitable Donation to be agreed with Mr. William Nye, esq. – Owner and Chairman of Lambeth Palace FC, and Chair of the Fete Committee).

The Nyematron – new attraction to this year’s fete, The Nyematron is an electronic whirligig that spins and spins and spins…and yet reverses any decision you have ever made. Thought you’d made a collective decision on the way forward and next steps? The Nyematron spins away and says: “Think Again!!”.

Duck-a-Hook – cross-party sponsorship from Save the Parish, and an anonymous group of rural churchwardens (over 300 of you – well done!). Put on a duck suit and avoid being hooked up to another role or job. Money back if not hooked. This amusement will have you hooked!!

Ferris Wheel of Eternal Deliberation – kindly sponsored by our friends at LLF Enterprises (NB: not recommended for adults). Enter a Pod at your Peril!! You’ll be put into a real-life group chat with people carefully selected to not like you (that much), yet still be quite nice to you (sort of). Please not, this Ferris Wheel does not stop once it starts, and you might still be there next year when the next Lambeth Palace Fete happens. (NB: Not an alternative to creche for children).

Willie the Wizard – our ever-popular Fortune-Teller is back!! Think you know what is going to happen next? Tell Willie, and he’ll put you right! Willie knows exactly how things are going to turn out, because he makes everything happen. Take the pain out of anticipation – or even democratic decisions – and Just Ask Willie!

Beat the Goalie – (NB: not as illustrated!). J. Grenfell, our No. 1 goalie for Lambeth Palace FC, won’t be in goal. The net is empty. You have ten seconds to score five consecutive goals from the spot. Money back if successful. Sponsored by NST Solutions.

White Lies Elephant Stall – kindly sponsored by the CofE Legal Affairs Dept. Get there early for the bargains and the rarities. NB: avoid mass-produced items that claim to come from any ‘independent’ manufacturer. White lies are durable, unbreakable and inexpensive. And mass-produced. Try and find the bargains that are not like this.

Stone-baked Scones, ‘Smyth-Whipped Cream’, a generous scoop of ‘Granny Grenfell’s Homemade Jam Tomorrow’, and a proper brew.

Coconut Shy? Test out your Myers-Briggs profile on this ever-popular game. What kind of coconut are you? Test your character by throwing hard balls at immovable targets.

The Maze of Misperception – kindly sponsored by the Archbishops’ Council. Don’t even try going in if you were thinking of getting out! It is literally impossible to find a pathway that works. You will be guided by people who tell you that you misunderstood what was meant last time you asked for directions or a decision.

Synod Carousel – (also not recommended for adults). Plays “Are We Nearly There Yet?”, and “I Thought We’d Decided, Last Time We Met…?”. Riders must stay on for a minimum of five years. Not recommended for children.

Lucky Dip – kindly sponsored this year by the National Union of Vergers. Prizes Galore from vestry cupboards across the land. Things you thought you’d never see again, mystery items that no longer work, random lost

Tombola – kindly sponsored by the Archbishops’ Council Strategic Development Fund. Huge, huge prizes. Fill in the form and see how many millions you can win for you and your friends!! NB: It is essential that you pre-qualify to play. Mr. Nye, owner and chairman of Lambeth Palace FC, has agreed to help and support potential applicants. If you are deemed to have potential

Jumble Sale – kindly sponsored by the CofE Pensions Board. No need to shop with Amazon or expensive high street retailers once you have retired. You can forget about John Lewis, or even Poundland. This stall is the one-stop-shop for all your needs, annually.

Plant Stall – come early to avoid disappointment!! Magic Money Trees from the Lambeth Palace nurseries still sell well. Some of the exotic plants from Central and South America on sale last year have been withdrawn on advice from the Metropolitan Police. However, we still have some and will accept suitable donations.

Episode Six: Things Fall Apart

It’s the end of the season, and after a slight up-swing in fortunes mid-season, Lambeth Palace FC find themselves rooted to the foot of the table yet again. The fans have long ceased to be restless, and made their feelings known by cutting up their season tickets and making a bonfire with them on the centre circle at half time, during the fixture with Baptist United. It was a dreadful game, with the Baptists barely able to field a team due to cuts in budgets, wage-strikes and transfers. They still won 3-1. Welby, the manager, soldiers on. He’s not looking to leave and talks wistfully of continuing until retirement.  Mr. Nye, the ever-elusive Chair and Owner of the club, is rarely seen at matches these days, but still holds 100% of the shares, and remains actively involved in team selection. With so little left to play for, and so few to play in front of, our reporter Gaby Lippy catches up with Welby after another home defeat.

Welby encouraged team prayers and gave a motivational talk before the final game of the season against the Methodist Marauders. Lambeth Palace lost 5-1, and had two players sent off, one for dissenting with the referee, a cousin of the Club Owner, Mr. Nye.

Gaby: Well, propping up the league again, I see, but at least there is no relegation from this division, so there is some good news for the fans after all, I guess?

Welby: Yes, that’s right Gaby. It’s not been our finest hour, but we are still in the game, thanks to the limitless support and funds provided by the Owner and Chair, Mr. Nye. I think that without him, it would certainly be a bit more challenging, so we really do have a lot to thank him for.

Gaby: Well, to be fair he provides all the cash, investment and the management, but it’s not actually his money, is it? I mean, this is a national club, and the Supporters Trust built the endowment over the centuries, so it is not actually his personal fortune here, is it? The English people own the club, don’t they?

Welby: I think your splitting hairs here, Gaby. Yes, it is not technically his own personal money, but he can still do whatever he wants with it anyway, so it is like it is his own cash. And he still makes all the financial decisions, buys the players, offloads or lends the players we don’t need now, or the ones that are not playing our kind of football. So, he’s busy in the transfer market all the time. And if there are players who need to be retired, or coaches and managers that need to be ‘let go’ or ‘moved on’ (as we like to say!), then he’s there in the foxhole for the club on that. I mean, fair play to Mr. Nye, the whole club runs through him, and there is no decision that matters that he hasn’t made. Oh, sorry I didn’t mean to imply you had split ends in your hair…

Gaby: …er, right. So, can we just look at a couple of the players this season who started out well, but have then, well…faded? Let’s start with your right-winger, Harrison. I mean, he causes trouble for the defence when he gets into the centre, and he’s a big lad for playing out right. He’s not quick, but he does well to wriggle out of tricky tackles. Yet we’ve not seen him for a while. Is he injured?

Welby: No, he’s fine, and funnily enough the lads nickname him the ‘Doctor’ because he fixes so many tricky situations and is incredibly good at doctoring anything the opposition throw at us. You don’t want to mess with Jamie!

Gaby: You mean he’s just like the Chairman?

Welby: Exactly! In fact, they really are good mates. Mr. Nye used to play on the right as an amateur, though oddly he likes to talk about being a deep central defender these days.

Gaby: Now, moving on, you’ve got Hughes who just came in at the end of last season. Lots of experience in foreign leagues, and a huge press conference when he took over from Spence, who retired. Hughes seemed to start brightly in midfield, distributing passes all over the pitch, but we haven’t seen him in ages.

Welby: Well to be honest, he’s not really settled, and we loaned him back to an overseas club for a spell. He’ll be back, but he’s having trouble adjusting to our style of play at Lambeth Palace.

Gaby: Now we have picked up on the difficulty of Mr. Nye owning and chairing more than one team in this league, and I wonder if you could clarify who Cole is playing for at present? One match Cole was in defence for Lambeth Palace for the first half, then switched sides and attacked for the second half. So, what’s going on here?

Welby: Ah, you’re referring to the Synod fixture at York, which I think was last season. Yes, Cole did play for both teams. Indeed, Cole still does play for both teams. But our philosophy at this club is simple. Provided a player does their best for both teams, even if playing in the same match, the Chairman is happy. They’re his players, after all, and he picks them on the basis that they play to the best of their ability in the position he puts them in – sometimes for different teams in the same match.

Gaby: Well, we could talk about all the players, I’m sure, but the one player that does frustrate fans the most is Grenfell, playing in goal. Except they’re not in goal, and in almost every fixture, and in the practice matches, Grenfell is not so much out of the box as out of the stadium, and nowhere to be found. What’s going on?

Welby: Grenfell is our Lead Goalie. Safeguarding that net is the job, and Grenfell wears the No.1 shirt.  Grenfell was picked by the Chairman. Make no mistake.

Gaby: Yes, but Grenfell is not injured, or on-loan…just absent. I mean, what is the point of a Lead Goalkeeper – your No.1 choice for goal keeping and safeguarding the net, as you say – who doesn’t play, or even turn up? I mean, how can they be first choice and completely absent at the same time..?

Welby: I don’t think you understand how football works at this club. If we name someone to play in a position, that is their designated position. That’s what they do, what they are, and what they must do is play with the ball in front of them… Before we named Grenfell as Lead Goalie for the team, it’s true that they had no track record in goalkeeping at all. But when we name someone for a position, we expect them to grow into the role over time, whether they come with any previous or relevant experience. So, it’s not really a problem that Grenfell had never kept goal before. Grenfell knew about football in general, and with our dynamic open play philosophy at Lambeth Palace FC, that means we can play any player anywhere on the pitch. True, sometimes it doesn’t work out. We put Snow and Hartley up front to partner with each other and score goals, which is what the fans want. But the chemistry between them wasn’t right, so Snow plays alone up front at the moment…though he isn’t getting much service from the rest of the team, which is a bit of an issue, and the number of own goals doesn’t help, I suppose. Still, Snow will be a great lone striker up front in due course…

Gaby: Yes Justin, I think this is the problem though, isn’t it? You seem to think that by naming somebody as your No.1 goalkeeper, they’ll safeguard the goal, flanked by the defence. But if your goalkeeper has never played in that position before, it’s hardly surprising you keep losing so badly, and the goalie then just goes AWOL or is always missing in action (MIA). I mean, it can’t be right that by naming anyone as a goalkeeper they really do then become the goalkeeper. That’s just fairyland logic, isn’t it?

Welby: Look, anyone can do a spot of goalkeeping. I mean, it’s actually everyone’s job. We must all do our bit to stop the ball hitting the net. Everyone knows a bit about goalkeeping – players, I mean. All we are saying is that Grenfell is now the Lead Goalkeeper. And that’s what Grenfell’s new green shirt says: “Grenfell, No. 1”! So, whenever you put the shirt on, you know you are the designated Lead Goalkeeper, and so you’d also know you can’t just run all over the pitch like some mad terrier-like midfielder.

Gaby: …seriously? I mean, you do have to be on the pitch to stop the goals going in. And it can’t be every player’s responsibility to keep goal, can it?

Welby: Well, don’t leave the fans out of this, Gaby! They have a responsibility to stop the goals too!

Gaby: You can’t be serious!

Welby: Well, I am serious. Goalkeeping is the responsibility of everyone who cares about Lambeth Palace FC. All we are saying is that Grenfell’s job is to be the No. 1 Goalkeeper, but we all share that responsibility too. Grenfell is the go-to person on the goal line to stop the opposition from scoring – that’s imperative – and hopefully launch the occasional counterattack. Grenfell loves the role and will grow into it as the number of appearances gradually increases – the Chairman has assured me of that – so watch and learn, as they say. There will be some big improvements next season. But it may take a few more seasons for things to really settle down and for the team to work together and find each other on the pitch. Just give us time. The fans need to be patient, that’s all.

Gaby: Well, thank you for all your time in these post-match interviews this season. Now, I know some of the most loyal season ticket holders are looking forward to your traditional end-of-season celebration in the gardens of the actual Lambeth Palace, where the Chairman and Owner mostly resides. I know it’s been a long while since there was any silverware to parade, but can the fans expect the usual fare come the end of May…?

Welby: Ha, hah. Yes, well, sadly not a trip to the Twin Towers of Wembley, (or Mordor!) or a European Cup to show off to the fans. Another year, perhaps. But no, you’re right Gaby, we run the Lambeth Parish Fete every year in the Chairman’s gardens, and all the usual stalls and attractions will be there. So, we look forward to seeing our Platinum and Premium Gold Season Ticket Holders next week, though sadly can’t admit Silver and Bronze members, or those claiming concessions. There’s just too many of them. But the good news is the event will be covered by GB News(!!) who are kindly sponsoring this year’s fun and games. Then we’re off on our long summer tour, hopefully coming back refreshed, ready to recommence our campaign to get back to winning ways in the Premiership, where we belong!

Gaby: Justin, thanks. Gary, back to you in the studio…

Episode Five: Alarm Bells Ringing

Lambeth Palace FC have had a record 12 points deducted for financial irregularities , fielding ineligible players, match-fixing, and also having pecuniary interests in other clubs, coaches and referees. The Manager, Justin Welby, vows to fight on, knowing that as there is no relegation from this league, he can’t lose. Unless, of course, the club is stripped of its status. But with the Owner-Chairman’s deep pockets, it looks as though Mr. Nye can ensure the club stay afloat, despite the fans being in open revolt…

Gaby: Well Justin, thanks for giving us this interview. It seems that no matter what you want to do on the field, it is all about the club when your not playing matches at the moment. Would that be fair?

Welby: Well look, Gaby, I don’t really get involved in the day-to-day running of the club. The Chairman and Owner, Mr. Nye does all of that, and he’s got an excellent team of people totally under him focussing on the difficulties that are being caused by the regulators. I mean, my job is just to get results in the games, and the players are obviously committed a 100% to that.  But yes, we could do with more press coverage on our upcoming games than on all of this financial stuff and match-fixing scandals.

Gaby: Well, we all hope this turns out OK, but in the meantime, your own fans continue to be very hostile to the Owner-Chairman and to you, the manager, and your, er, ahem, rather hapless assistant coach, Steve.

Welby: Well let me quash some of those rumours right there, and nip them in the bud. Steve is very happy, not hapless. We work together, and he’s always smiling, talking, laughing and doing his motivational team talk talks. In fact, he’s so committed to the motivational teams talks, I’ve known some take longer than the training session itself. He’s a great talker is Steve – one of the best. As for Mr. Nye, well he doesn’t usually bother himself with criticisms directed at his conduct, complaints or protests. He’s just not bothered by that kind of nonsense from the fans, the press or the public, and I imagine he takes the same attitude with the regulators too. I mean he owns the club, so he’s not going to be pushed around by so-called stake-holders, fan-forums or the like. He is a good listener, and he listens to me sometimes, but he’s the Chairman, and he doesn’t have to take account of other people’s views. So he does the team selection, the fixture schedule and all the other things that matter, leaving me free to manage what’s left, which is really just weekly match.

Gaby: But you haven’t commented on the fans hostility to you, Justin. I see the other day that you were advising your backroom staff to carry panic alarms, and that you have one too. Is that right? What are your afraid of here?

Welby: I’m not afraid of anything. I’ll have you know I have no fear at all. But a panic alarm is essential for health and safety these days, and our PR team made a pre-emptive announcement about the need for us to carry these now, and I’m just waiting for mine to be issued. It was really a proactive measure, designed to stem the kinds of attacks and criticism we have been facing. We’re not looking for sympathy, or trying to stigmatise aggrieved fans. It’s just that this seemed like a good way to get ahead of the story, and put the fans in the spotlight rather than me, week-by-week.

Gaby: Do you think the Chairman carries a panic alarm?

Welby: Good grief, no! It really was his idea that we were issued with them in the first place, as a kind of warning to others to stop their endless criticism and attacks. But the Chairman, as I said earlier, ignores all criticism and verbal attacks, and gets on with the running the club. He’s the owner, he calls the shots, and to be honest, he’s not going to pay any attention to a group of aggrieved fans complaining. If they don’t like where he is taking this club, the fans can always walk away and buy a season ticket at another club.

Gaby: Rather cruelly, some fans have suggested that the panic alarms are there to alert you to when Mr. Nye is in the vicinity. I know they’re pulling your leg, but it does say something about how the fans regard him, and you…

Welby: A bit of rough humour from the fans is fine by me. I saw the other day that one of Mr. Nye’s feeder clubs for Lambeth Palace FC is AFC Bishop Argyle, and some fans have suggested that AFC stands for Another Fu..[bleeped out]..ing Corrupt Bishop? But boys will be boys, I guess. Sometimes you just have to rise above the fans and accept that you can never be a perfect manager…

Gaby: So, no panic alarms going off then, but other alarm bells are ringing, are they not? In recent media interviews you fielded Jamie Harrison and Ian Paul, who are players known for their rather aggressive style of play and their robust tackling…but they’re not necessarily a good advert for the club. Harrison seemed to suggest that the club were always fully compliant with league regulations and referee decisions, and he’s clearly mistaken there.

Welby: Well, Jamie talks a good talk, but people honestly shouldn’t take him at his word.  He’s just trying to get his point across, and not to be taken literally.

Gaby: ..er right, so, we should really discount most of what he says?

Welby: [low grunt of agreement; looks at his watch].

Gaby: As for Paul, well, his media comments seem to offend just about everyone.  The other day he was claiming that Irish-born players faced the same kind of discrimination as black players. He also claimed that Irish players in the transfer market had just as much of a tough time as black players who in the past were often forced to play for no wages many thousands of miles from home. These comments were deemed very offensive. What do you say about that?

Welby: You make a fair point, but you know not so long ago it was pretty tough on Irish players trying to integrate into the English game. Many black players didn’t have that problem, because they just upped-sticks from Africa to play in the American and Caribbean leagues, and they didn’t have the same integration problem, as there were so many of them, and there was such solidarity in their numbers, and those football leagues could all be started from scratch, so yes, no real problems with integration there.

Gaby: I think that may be all the time we have today. Thank you. Do keep hold of that panic alarm now…you never know when Mr. Nye might be near…

Welby: …hah hah…[looks around nervously].

Gaby: Back to you in the studio, Gary.

Episode Four: Things Can Only Get Better

Problems continue to mount for Lambeth Palace FC. With external audits of alleged financial irregularities underway, and results still very poor, match-fixing scandals and a reclusive Owner-Chairman doubling down on any dissent, the club is an unhappy place. The manager has tried to lift the morale, but every move he makes, it seems, causes more ructions…

Gaby: Well, Justin, thanks for agreeing to be interviewed again. I know you’ve only just come back from the friendly fixture for the England team against the Post-Colonial XI, but that was a pretty embarrassing defeat against a scratch team that hadn’t played together before.

Welby: Yes, well, it pays to never underestimate how far these other nations have progressed in the game, and the days when England could beat anyone in the world are long gone. If you look at the Premiership, its full of players from developing nations that were once colonies of ours. So in a way, this is our legacy, and you could read this as a ‘win’ for England’s investment over the centuries…

Gaby: Well, I’m not sure that the English really did much to support football teams being created on slave plantations, or as a distraction in other countries we colonised through conquest and occupation by military force, albeit badged under the imposition of commerce, civilisation and Christianity.

Welby: I think you’ll find those countries were very pleased that we brought order and rule to them, and got them playing sports like cricket and football…

Gaby: …er, well, it was a 6-0 loss for the England team in any case, and the England fans all threw turnips onto to the pitch at the end to make some kind of symbolic link between your tenure as a manager and Graham Taylor’s time in the hot seat.

Welby: I can’t comment on the fans. They will have their own views. I hope they know that the lads gave a hundred percent in very difficult conditions, and were it not for injuries, VAR decisions and other problems, I reckon we might have nicked a result. But football is a funny old game, and a fickle mistress…

Gaby: I am not sure that last remark is helpful, given the recent problems with Lambeth Palace Women’s FC. Apparently some members of your board, the Owner-Chairman, and a small group of fans, don’t believe in women’s football, and want you to boycott it completely. They’re talking about breaking away from the club, or not paying for season tickets.

Welby: Look, Lambeth Palace FC is an all-age, all-inclusive club. We accept everyone, and that includes those who want to bar others from entry or playing. What we absolutely don’t accept is discrimination of any kind, and we have a zero-tolerance policy on that. That’s why our ‘Kick-Out, Stamp-Out, Shout-Out’ campaign was such a success last year.

Gaby: Yes, but you do have people sitting on the board opposed to women’s football, and who won’t allow them to play here at Lambeth, so they have to train in a local park, and play matches somewhere else…

Welby: Let me stop you there, Gaby. Dorset is not that far away from Lambeth, and the supporters like to make a day of it and travel. The women’s team training in a public park is a good advert for women’s football, and clearly makes the game accessible and inclusive to a wider audience. We are fully committed to equality and inclusion. We don’t tolerate racism, discrimination on grounds of ability or disability, or allow ageism – these things are all against the law.

Gaby: Hmmm…but you do tolerate sexism, don’t you? And you do make sure that those who want to operate with a sexist outlook are honoured, in the same way that the club has yet to welcome an openly gay player. I mean, you are also homophobic as a club too, aren’t you?

Welby: I think you’ll find that sexism and homophobia are not the right words here. Discrimination on grounds of gender and sexuality have a long history in football, and are part of its traditions. We have obligations to those fans and board members that represent that honoured tradition, and they have every right to continue with their discriminatory views and practices. As do those who oppose them! But as an inclusive club, we treat all opinions and all people equally…

Gaby: But that makes no sense, Justin. You can’t do that with racism, can you?

Welby: Ah, but racism is illegal, and sexism and homophobia isn’t – well, at least not in football, though that is changing, and we are keeping our eye on changes in the law, though football is exempt, I think you’ll find, from equality laws that don’t continue to permit the perpetration of inequality.

Gaby: What about your fabulous gay centre forward from last season, now transferred to another club I gather, for an undisclosed fee? Some of the board refused to watch matches if he was in the team, and a few of your fans ripped up their season tickets in protest at him playing.

Welby: Well, these things are difficult. I get where the opposition comes from. And I get where the player comes from. And I get where the other fans are coming from. It is true that 95% of fans signed a petition saying they wanted him to play, but I have to consider the 5% who are not ready for that step yet. We owe it to them to keep them onside…

Gaby: Now, moving on, if I may, we interviewed Steve, your assistant coach last week, about the player-referee scandal, and since then some fans have come forward to complain about one of your players, Cole, who sometimes plays one half of a match for the home team, and the other half for the away team. Last week in the B-League, she was a defender for the Archbishops’ Council XI, and then at halftime became a midfielder for the Audit Committee XI. She scored twice – once in each half – but nobody knows if these are own goals. It’s a bit odd, isn’t it?

Welby: Oh, I don’t think so. The Owner-Chairman makes the team selection, and both these clubs are his, so it is quite normal for him to own the players too, as they are contracted to him, and they can therefore play for two teams at once, sometimes in the same match.

Gaby: How do the fans know whether or not this is match-fixing again? I mean, if Mr. Nye owns the players, the clubs and the referees, and chooses who plays and officiates each match, it is starting to feel like…well, I don’t know what word to use here, but maybe a bit corrupt?

Welby: I don’t think most fans would see it like that. They are just out for a good time and to watch entertaining football. We want them to pay for that and get value for money, subscribe to the club TV channel, keep renewing their season tickets, buy the merchandise, and spend their money. But the management of this club is something we do for them, and I think most fans are very glad to not know what is going on behind the closed doors of the board room, or even in the dressing room.

Gaby: One final question, Justin. Here you are, Lambeth Palace FC, languishing at the bottom of a league you can’t even be relegated from. You used to play against the likes of Newcastle, Nottingham, Manchester and Sheffield. With relegation, that changed to Leicester, Norwich, Ipswich, Birmingham, Blackburn, Coventry,  Southampton and Leeds. With another relegation, that opposition became clubs like Derby, Carlisle, Bristol, Oxford  and Portsmouth. And now you are up against the likes of Isle of Wight Drifters, Eton Old Boys, Hacienda Orient and South Croydon University Alumni. Where does it all end?

Welby: Gaby, I can tell you now that we have a proud history of taking on the best clubs in Italy, Spain, Germany and all the other competition we might face. We’re a big club. As big as Rome FC and Dynamite Moscow FC. As big as…well, big. And we are big. We’ll be back. Just you see. We just need more time to turn this around. I’ve been manager here for over a decade now, and all the problems we’ve encountered on my watch are ones we intend to fix on my watch. The previous management left us with a dreadful legacy, and we will climb out of this hole, now that we have got to the bottom of this, and there is no possibility of going down any further.

Gaby: Justin Welby, thank you. Garry, back to you again…

Episode Three: The Assistant Coach Steps In

After some better results for Lambeth Palace FC, the issues over game-management and team selection have not gone away.  An independent regulatory investigation into the football club reveals an organisation that is mired in bad management, poor leadership, lack of professionalism, financial losses, corruption, and basic failures in running a club.  The Club potentially faces a huge fine.  With Justin Welby called away to manage the England friendly fixture against an All-Star Post-Colonial XI, Assistant Coach Steve Cottrell is in the hot-seat for the interview.

Gaby: Steve, welc….

Steve: Gaby can I just stop you right there and interrupt you before you start, and say how glad I am to be here talking to you today, and also to the fans? As you know, we love the fans. They make the club what we are, and I want to pay tribute to them for their support and fortitude. I know things have been difficult for them in recent times, and I can only say ‘sorry’ once again. I know that it sometimes seems like we keep saying that – and we do – but we always mean it. We will do better. We have to be allowed to get this right, and I genuinely believe that we will do that one day soon. We know we have to do better, and get things proper. We have a great team, and great board of directors, a fabulous Chair and Owner, and a top manager. The only things we need to fix are the results, and we are working on fixing all future results. We obviously can’t go back and change the results, though believe me, we have had a long look at that possibility, but it’s too difficult, apparently. Look, we are really listening to the fans here. I know it’s hard for the fans when we don’t get the results they want, and the performances are below par, but as I’ve said before to the fans, we can only say ‘sorry’ here, and repeat that we are sorry, genuinely, for the heartache, failings and mistakes we have made in management and leadership of this club. We just need more time to get this right, and we will. We are listening hard to the fans, and really listening this time. It’s hard for us too, as the fans know. But as we listen, we learn. For example,  I just bumped into a fan on the way to this interview, and he said to me, “Steve, you are not our enemy, but we badly need a change now, and you really do need to be on your…” and I stopped him right there and said,

“…thank you, you know, I hear that, I really do. And we are here to be part of that change and deliver it to the fans, because that is what the fans have asked us to do. Results will pick up, and once we have completed our internal reviews, run by our own excellent in-house staff, we will be able to turn this around, and get where we need to be…”

The fan just walked away after I’d explained our position over the next ten minutes, but he didn’t register any disagreement whilst I was speaking. So yes, I know that at present the results have not gone our way, and I have said ‘sorry’ to the fans for that because we know they expect better. But that is what this game is all about. We are here to win, and I genuinely believe we can, given enough time, turn things around, get things right, and be back to our old winning ways. Of course I am sorry that it hasn’t been a good season so far – or even with much to cheer about for several years now – but we need continuity, not change, and that’s why we continue to invest in our own internal strategies and tried-and-tested methods, because they’ve got us this far, and put us in this position, which I believe is a position of real potential for success and growth.  It is always sad when so-called external bodies try and intervene in the workings of a great club like ours, but look Gaby, we’ll take those independent reports on the chin, we’ve set up our own working party to look at the recommendations made to us, and as a sign of our good faith that working party was put together and started its work even before the independent reports were even published. You can’t get more proactive than that, can you? I mean, this just shows how ahead of the game we really are, and how much we welcome any recommendations for change that consolidate and confirm our current good practice and conduct in the game as a whole. As I say, I have said ‘sorry’ to the fans for this poor run of results, because we know we should be doing better. What we now need is more time to get things right, less pressure for critics and doomsters who keep telling us and everyone else that its only getting worse. Actually, if they just shut up a bit, that would be an improvement without us needing to do anything, and we’d then be free to get on and work out which of these independent scrutiny reports to take a look at first, because as I say, we take this all very seriously, and we know the fans are concerned. But nobody is more concerned than I am, and that’s why I am asking the supporters for more time, more support, and to be left alone to fix this, so we don’t have to keep coming back to interviews like this time and time again, saying ‘sorry’ to the fans, when what we all want to be doing is saying ‘that was a great game, and we deserved to win, because winning is what this great football club is all about… [editor: this continues for another ten minutes, and for reasons of space and the mental welfare of readers, has been cut at this point].

Gaby: Well, there’s not much more time left for the interview here, but can I just run a couple of issue by you, as some of these independent reports have expressed quite serious concerns about some of the players and officials?

Steve: I have not been briefed about this by the Chairman and Owner, as he is the only one who gets to read these reports and respond to them. Is there a problem?

Gaby: You could say that. One report notes that whilst it is not without precedent to have a player-manager in the team, and maybe a separate captain, it does require some thinking through as to who has which role.

Steve: I accept that, but look, the Chairman and Owner picks the team, and he sometimes gets so heavily involved in selection and so excited by the action in a game that he sits with us in the players area, but usually well out of sight of the cameras as he gets very nervous about the media lip-reading him.

Gaby: …hmm, yes, I think we are aware of how much influence Mr. Nye has on the team selections, fixtures and results. I guess as the Chairman and the Owner he has a personal investment in how things go?

Steve: Yes, he does, and we are all the richer for that…

Gaby: …but what I was really meaning about player roles is that yes, you can have a player-manager, and a goalie that goes up at the end of a match to join the attack, and even a defender who can put on a goalie jersey if needs be. Plenty of players can play left and right, deep and wide, midfield and wing-back. But your matches have player-referees. These are players on your books who are also officiating at your matches.

Steve: What’s wrong with that? I mean, players who know the game and all the tricks of the trade make for ideal refs – they won’t stand any nonsense from the teams who are into diving and faking injuries and all that kind of malarky. There is an argument that says all refs should ideally be former, recent or current players.

Gaby: Er, maybe. But your match officials are also your players, so Mr. Nye is not just doing the team selection – he’s also picking the referees and the linesmen, whom he also happens to be paying to officiate at matches involving his teams.

Steve: Yes, but the ref is the ref, so independent. He stands above the match, and is beyond repute.

Gaby: …er, yes, but you can surely see the problem here? Mr. Nye might own both teams playing each other, and also selects the referees and linesman, who are also on his books as players. Don’t you think that is a bit odd…potentially corrupt, even?

Steve: No, I can’t see how. They’re all independent of each other, and everyone knows the rules of the game. Mr. Nye has a hand in match fixtures, and in choosing the teams and the officials. But that’s as far as it goes. After that, it is an open game. I mean, we all know that Mr. Nye has a gameplan and a result in mind. He’s a go-getter, and he’s very successful. If he needs a score draw from the two teams he happens to own when they play each other, I honestly can’t see how any of this is a problem for football.

Gaby: I think we’ll leave it there, Steve. Thanks for talking to us. Good luck with the listening. Gary, back to you in the studio.