In the Channel 4 programme, See No Evil, we revisited the horrific activities of John Smyth and some of the pain experienced by the victims of his sadistic cruelty.  The bulk of the facts in this story have already been laid out for us in Andrew Graystone’s excellent account, Bleeding for Jesus.  While we learnt little new information about what went on in the shed in a Winchester garden, there were aspects of the story which were fresh to us in the new programme.  For me, and no doubt for many of my readers, there was a welcome attempt in the programme to understand the part played by John Smyth’s wife, Anne, in the saga.  It is clear from witnesses that she was close to the shameful events that took place in England and Africa, but always seemed to be in the background, unable to do or say anything decisive to ward off the cruel and criminal activities of her husband. 

In the Channel 4 retelling of the story, we watched once more the confrontation scene in Bristol when Cathy Newman of Channel 4 News ambushed John Smyth and challenged him to defend himself from the accusations of abusing young men through his regime of beatings.  This now familiar episode which has been played every time the Smyth story has been told, also contained images of Anne a few steps behind him.  It probably did not strike me the first time I watched the drama, but eventually I cottoned on to the fact that Anne’s expression on her face was wildly out of kilter with what might have been expected in this situation.  When a wife sees her husband accused of a terrible crime, the expected response might be an angry rebuttal.  Alternatively, there might be a concerned look of fear or shame etched on to the face.  Anne’s face showed neither emotion.  Instead, what we witnessed might be described as a embarrassed grin.  This was suggestive of a total detachment from the dramatic and life-changing events taking place on this Bristol street.   The half-smiling face that Anne was presenting to us revealed absolutely nothing of her actual feelings at that moment.  This apparent lack of engagement with the Bristol drama suggested that Anne had indeed already found a way to cope as another ‘survivor’ of Smyth’s crimes.  In the later interview with two of her children, which was part of the second instalment of Channel 4’s programme, she confessed to her children how she had shut down part of herself in order not to allow herself to react or get drawn into the dramas around her.  I leave it to others to decide as to whether this kind of repression is any defence which might lessen her guilt and responsibility.  Guilty or not, it may be right for us to suggest that Anne’s responsibility in Smyth’s crimes can be compared to a situation where cultic dynamics are at work.  One of the situations that presented Americans with a far-reaching moral debate in the 70s was the case of Patty Hearst.  Patty was kidnapped by the so-called Symbionese Liberation Army.  Somehow her captors succeeded in persuading this wealthy heiress to become part of the organisation and Patty was recruited to take part in a bank robbery where she was clearly seen to be using a rifle to threaten bank employees.  We can think of this turn-around as a kind of inverted conversion experience.  Such conversions are frequently discussed and analysed in the cult literature.    The human brain certainly seems capable of making a 180-degree change when certain forms of persuasion techniques are applied.  This can be observed within the context of political settings as well as religious contexts.  Was Anne Smyth the object of a cultic conversion in the context a cult-like environment which John Smyth had created within his own home?

To continue my speculation on the baffling key role that Anne Smyth seems to have played in Smyth/Winchester crimes, I believe that we should see her personality formation as belonging to two distinct phases.  The first of these phases would have been as a child in what was likely to have been a conventional conservative Christian family.  For many such families, making a good marriage was counted more important than having a successful career.  While we do not have access to the detail of Anne’s early family life, it is not unreasonable to suggest that her upbringing was preparing her to conform to biblical ideas of what a good Christian wife should be.   There are various key passages in Scripture which describe the ideals to which a good Christian girl should aspire.  Words like obedience and subservience to parents and to a future husband would have formed a prominent part in the culture.  There has been much discussion over recent decades over the meaning of complementarian to describe the relation of the sexes, but in the typical evangelical interpretation of this word there always seems to be a surrender of initiative and power to the men in the relationship.  No doubt Anne was reared to accept these ideas of female subordination as a given.   The Iwerne culture, which has been examined on many occasions in this blog, forbade the women, who were recruited to do the chores in the camps, to interact with the men.  It was probably thought to be a way of training these young women to look up to the menfolk.  They were, biblically speaking, thought to be in command and, in the context of marriage, these men would always to have the last word.   Anne may have been one of these ‘bunnies’ but, even if not, the model of subservient womanhood so valued by evangelical leaders from their reading of scripture, would have been practised in the Smyth household.

Alongside this biblical model of how to be a woman as promoted by mainstream evangelical culture, there seems to have been a darker dimension of dominance, subordination and control alive and at work in the Smyth household.  The very fact that there were happening in the garden of the family home secret episodes involving trauma, pain and the shedding of human blood was extraordinary.  The dynamics of the Smyth family have the hallmarks of a small cult.  The typical pattern of a cult will include a strong centre of control, normally a male, who carries all authority over the women and children under him.  These dominant male figures in a cultic situation typically suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder.  This is a personality type that thrives on constantly occupying the central dominant role in a group.  His (typically male) position flourishes in having others under him, preserving a stance of constant obedience and subordination.  John Smyth was known for his volcanic temper which no doubt had the effect of preserving his position in the family by means of exercising a fear-engendering control.  Fear of John was spoken of by one of the Smyth daughters and we may reasonably conjecture that the dynamic of fear was firmly embedded in the husband wife system of relating.

John damaged and destroyed the lives of many during his lifetime.  There were in England and Africa at least 100 victims of his sadistic behaviour wrapped up in a faux Christian rhetoric.   The family should be included in this total for reasons that were made abundantly clear in the second Channel 4 programme.  One of the appalling lessons of the Smyth story is that John may have failed to realise even with the wisdom of old age that he was behaving in a way that completely denied the central tenets of the faith.  The corrupt theology that he lived by caused terrible damage to everyone that he came into touch with.  He seems to have genuinely believed that he was practising a way of life that promoted human flourishing, through adherence to certain passages of sacred Scripture.  As we all know, he will be remembered as the most prolific abuser that the Church has ever known.  The unnamed ‘spear carriers’ in John’s story, those who taught him his cultic version of the faith or those later who did nothing to challenge his behaviour, have also played a part in the story.  Other unknown individuals played a part in Anne’s story by having taught her a version of the faith which encouraged her to acquiesce in a position of meek female subjection to the dominance exercised by John in the home.   However we look at it, there is a disturbing and unsettling coda to the terrible pain that existed and emerged from the Smyth family.  Can we really slip away from the story by claiming that the Smyths failed to live up to the clear moral imperatives of the Christian faith?  Should we not begin to recognise that the most dreadful psychologically disturbed individuals can, if not challenged, justify cruel destructive behaviour with the words of Scripture.  Perhaps we need to be far more careful before we decide that we know what the Bible truly teaches. 

by an anonymous member of the Church of England

Rural ministry in the Church of England is a world apart from the busy city churches of provincial towns and the lively modern leaning evangelical congregations found in conurbations.   If you’ve never worshipped in a small rural parish, imagine belonging to a small residents’ association where everyone is terribly polite whilst expressing very strong opinions, everything smells slightly damp and dusty, and the person in charge has indefinite job security, absolute authority, and may lack any of the practical or spiritual skills normally associated with being a vicar.

Picture one typical rural benefice.   The priest-in-charge arrived three years ago from a nearby parish, where, it now transpires, her ministry had evolved spectacularly badly.  The lay interview panel were not made aware of her past failures.  Had they been, they would have been alert to the danger, I am sure, of appointing her to a benefice so similar to the one in which she had failed so publicly.  That posting ended with both the incumbent and the parishioners begging the bishop for her to be moved elsewhere, which was done under cover of COVID.  The more cynical felt she might have been drawn to parish ministry because of the provision of a house and an ‘easier’ life. 

Parishioners in this benefice thought they had chosen a new vicar to engage with parishioners, cherish their elderly, and shepherd their community with gentle wisdom, much as the previous incumbent had done most successfully.  Unfortunately, what they got (promoted by the area bishop behind the scenes), was an entirely unsuitable incumbent.    She is devoid of social skills or empathy and is painfully shy.  This manifests itself as unfriendliness and a passive aggressive approach to interaction with lay people, alongside a particular hatred for some individuals, whom she perceives as a threat.  She seems lazy and unwilling to carry out her duties, whether administrative, pastoral or spiritual.   She finds it hard to project herself in the services so that worship is generally irredeemably dreary.    

Realising the problems, five out of seven churches’ wardens asked their Archdeacon to intercede and to devise ways in which they could help the incumbent.   The wardens described to the Archdeacon the incumbent’s various failings: the poor quality of the services, the fact that the previous vicar had managed to take a huge number of services and she managed less than half that number, her continuous grumbling about the number of funerals which occur (not unsurprisingly in a rural community popular with retirees), her lack of interest in meeting her parishioners and her complete failure to provide any pastoral care.  When challenged on this point she complained ‘what about pastoral care for me?!’   

The Archdeacon confessed that he did recognise the resurgence of difficulties as in her previous post.  He spent the remainder of the meeting explaining that he did not actually employ the priest and he was not, therefore, her line manager.   He therefore could not help, beyond talking to her.    The Archdeacon conceded that the priest was probably out of her depth but reassured the wardens that she was unlikely to last more than a year or two and would retire.   This, he seemed to think, was a solution. 

Soon the incumbent became aware of the increasing noise of criticism and her behaviour became aggressive and vindictive, directed against various lay members of the churches, whom she cast as ‘troublemakers’.   She cancelled all further benefice meetings for churchwardens, a ‘divide and conquer’ policy, thus depriving them and their congregations of a voice.

The cold war then instigated by the priest in charge with one of the smaller parishes in the benefice is remarkable. Members of the lay community thus sought help from the area bishop.

The priest removed any responsibility for funerals, weddings and baptisms from that parish’s churchwardens.  She asked in writing that one particular warden communicate with her only through a third party, a retired clergyman.   Services taken by the priest in this parish are miserable and her attitude to the congregation is unfriendly and cold.   There is no ‘hello’ or ‘goodbye’ to the wardens, or ‘thank you’, no friendly engagement with the congregation and the services are lacklustre.  She brings with her to every service a ‘chaperone’, who is robed and skulks around the altar with no discernible purpose, except presumably, to protect the incumbent against attack! Frankly, the congregation dreads these encounters, and it has shrunken from ten to six people.   A congregation of this size cannot afford to lose anyone.

The service rota for these Christmas weeks sadly included no services for this particular victimised parish – nothing between mid-November and mid-January.    Villagers are left disappointed and bewildered that their church will be ‘dark’ over Christmas.

The incumbent also requires a chaperone (a retired clergyman) to attend PCC meetings, which, the latter noted, were most friendly, cheerful and constructive events!

There has been some good news.   This benefice is much blessed with a supply of popular retired clergy who are willing and able to join the life of the seven parishes and lend a hand with services.   But unfortunately, the present incumbent feels threatened by these thoroughly professional and experienced clergy, perhaps thinking that they will expose her shortcomings.   The retired clergy have no such intentions and simply want to help spiritually and practically in villages which are now their forever homes.   To this end the incumbent has banned them from taking services in the troublesome parish and has removed them from the service rota.  They have been warned not to attend any church-related events in that village or even social occasions unrelated to the church.    Those retired clergy feel they must comply, through a mistaken belief (I think) that the priest could remove Permission to Officiate, were they to break these rules.  Surely not?  

These are small acts of administrative vengeance wielded with a bureaucratic sledgehammer to destructive effect. Combine this with a diocesan hierarchy reluctant to confront conflict or take responsibility, and the result is inevitable: a priest who behaves like a minor autocrat, and parishes left waving for help.  One might think this would concern the diocesan authorities.

Rural life, with its particular rhythms, expectations, and social glue, is often misunderstood by diocesan officials and possibly they are not interested and simply regard rural parishes as sources of money, for which they ask continually.  These seven parishes struggle to pay their parish shares because of dwindling numbers. 

Rural ministry throughout England is in dire straits.  A dwindling number of clergy (and a dwindling number of congregants) means that parishes are bolted together into larger and larger, and more unwieldy, benefices.  The benefice described here has seven parishes but twelve and fourteen are not unknown.   The job of incumbent is thus almost impossible.   But some priests do a grand job, nonetheless.   They get congregations onside so that they will share the burdens and support their priest in practical ways.   Such priests get to know every family and build social contacts that go both ways and provide help and support for all parties when needed.    Congregants are often elderly and successful clergy understand that funerals are pastoral events, not inconvenient blockages in the clerical diary.  Support of bereaved families is also essential and ongoing, but if a priest builds connections in each village this will happen naturally with the help and support of residents.

To make matters worse, bishops and archdeacons seem overstretched, spiritually lacking, and keen to avoid dealing with parish disputes. So poor leadership goes unchallenged, on the wobbly premise that church law states that diocese do not ‘employ’ their parish priests and so nothing can be done.

Unfortunately, this priest in charge has decided, having alienated all those who might help her, to isolate herself within a tight group of four friends, who will ‘defend her’ against all criticism and opposition. Sadly, two of these are themselves churchwardens and are thus not representing the views of the two congregations which they lead.

The parishes endure because they know the church is bigger than one priest.

They endure because Christmas comes whether clergy approve or not.

They endure because there will always be someone willing to stand up, light a candle, and declare that the story of Christ’s birth is not affected by diocesan ham-fistedness and incompetence.

And most of all, they endure because humour is the final defence of the Anglican soul. When faced with ecclesiastical incompetence, they do not riot. They do not revolt.
They make tea.  They swap stories.  They pray that one day they will find a priest they trust. And so these little parishes soldier on, powered mostly by cake, stubbornness and resilience.

In a strange way, this incumbent has achieved something extraordinary. By neglecting her work and her parishes, by waging bureaucratic and administrative war on her wardens, by exercising authority with a supreme lack of grace, she has inadvertently reminded us that the church is not run from the bishop’s palace, the deanery, and nor from the vicarage.

It is run—quietly, stubbornly, lovingly—from the pews.   And the parish(es) will always outlast the priest.

It is difficult to see what, if anything, of the problems in rural ministry, the difficulties of multi-parish benefices and the vetting of ordinands will be effectively dealt with.   Some more practical, real solutions would be useful with a manual on how to apply them.   Rural churches are in dire straits.   The Church of England needs to grasp the nettle.

The opinion piece ‘Church of England Must Rapidly Accelerate Safeguarding Reforms’ by Anon 17 November 2025 https://survivingchurch.org/2025/11/17/church-of-england-must-rapidly-accelerate-safeguarding-reforms/#comment-26329 highlights the problems in the Church of England’s safeguarding when it comes to those accused of safeguarding concerns including abuse. Reading about the harm that bishops (and archbishops and other safeguarding officers) can do to accused clergy is shocking. However, Anon fails to prioritise those who have been abused by Church of England clergy (and other church officers) and this is a significant omission which skews the priorities of safeguarding.

The Charity Commission’s statement https://www.gov.uk/government/news/church-of-england-charity-must-rapidly-accelerate-safeguarding-reforms urges the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England to do better and speed up the process of establishing good safeguarding practice. The Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England’s reply https://www.churchofengland.org/media/press-releases/archbishops-council-response-charity-commission-case-review is unhelpfully defensive and only serves to minimise reputational damage, thus failing to prioritise those abused by clergy and completely ignoring the needs of clergy accused of safeguarding concerns by bishops.

The Church of England has a terrible record of abuse to children, young people, vulnerable adults and those who trusted clergy as safe people. Abuse can be physical, sexual, spiritual, psychological, emotional, financial, be neglectful or include maltreatment as listed in the draft Abuse Redress Measure https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/50136/documents/270512/default/  There is now not only acknowledgement of the abuse by clergy, but there is also the offer of financial compensation https://www.churchofengland.org/safeguarding/redress-scheme for those who have experienced clergy abuse. The Church of England is to be commended for recognising that abuse has been taking place and for planning financial redress.

To be clear to readers, this author is someone who has experienced abuse by Church of England clergy, and has also been referred to as a victim, a survivor, and a victim-survivor of Church of England clergy abuse. This author is not a member of the Church of England clergy and has never been investigated by the Church of England safeguarding team.

Abuse hurts. Abuse has long term harmful health impacts and can negatively alter the lives of those who have experienced it. Abuse by Church of England clergy hurts in additional ways affecting trust, belonging, faith and spiritual identity. It is hurtful that Anon challenges the lived experiences of those who survive Church of England clergy abuse by focussing only on clergy accused of safeguarding concerns including abuse, seemingly ignoring those abused by clergy. It is also hurtful to see the word ‘victims’ used by Anon in a vague catch-all way to indicate, perhaps, although this is also not clear, both ‘victims of abuse’ and ‘victims who continue to suffer’ without it being clear if this refers to those who have experienced clergy abuse or clergy accused of abuse, thus failing to distinguish who is a victim of what and by whom.

Clarity is important. It is wrong to assume that those abused by clergy as well as clergy accused of abuse by Church of England bishops can both belong on the same safeguarding failure continuum. Those who have been abused by clergy, clergy who abuse, and clergy accused of safeguarding concerns are not all ‘victims together’ in some confused sentiment of grievance against the Church of England. Anon writes of ‘unspecified, vague or false allegations of ‘safe-guarding concerns’ but does not acknowledge that such allegations can originate from those abused by clergy, or that the accused clergy could include those who have indeed carried out abuse. There is no admission by Anon that those speaking up about abuse might do so honestly, exposing a truth of harmful experiences that are difficult to report. As someone who has experienced clergy abuse, it hurts to be sidelined by opinion pieces which prioritise clergy on the receiving end of the Church of England’s flawed safeguarding policies and practices when discussing the Charity Commission’s statement and the Archbishops Council’s response.

There is no doubt that for any clergy to be accused of safeguarding concerns including abuse can cause many problems. It is to be acknowledged that for the church to undertake safeguarding in a way which leaves accused clergy spiritually, psychologically, emotionally or financially damaged, neglected or maltreated is very bad practice. Anon is right to say the Church of England’s safeguarding practice is ‘in a frightful state’. But without first getting safeguarding right for those abused by clergy as the Church of England’s priority, clergy accused of safeguarding concerns including abuse will never be treated with fairness or given the support they need. And opinion pieces which present the Church of England’s safeguarding as having ‘all the safety and robustness of medieval witch trials’ risk enabling clergy who abuse because they too can claim they have been unfairly treated when they should be held to account.

So please, Anon, get this the right way round! Demand that the Church of England first improves safeguarding for those who have experienced clergy abuse, then hold abusive clergy to account but bishops must do this in a way that is fair and also supportive of clergy who abuse to help protect against additional harms. Prioritise those who have been abused because their world has shifted to become unsafe by Church of England clergy who should have been trustworthy. This is the most urgent safeguarding issue – that the Church of England’s safeguarding fails to protect those abused by clergy and fails to hold to account clergy who abuse. Putting those abused by clergy first is vital if the Church of England’s safeguarding is to ever improve. Only then can there be any hope of fairness in the management of clergy accused of abuse or safeguarding concerns.

Name and details withheld

by Stephen Parsons

One of the incontestable facts about the Church of England is that parishes designated as conservative evangelical seem to have few problems in raising money.  Other mainstream parishes around them are likely envious as they see large sums of money flowing into these churches.  Expensive sound systems and huge reordering projects costing millions seem never to be a problem for these conservative congregations.  Meanwhile the ordinary non-conservative parish next door struggles to pay the Parish Share and keep their plant in good order.  For the first church, money appears easily; for the other it involves a hard and time-consuming struggle.  What is the reason for this disparity?  The answer is probably to be found in a single word – tithing.

The practice of tithing is held up to be a biblical practice with the authority of passages from Numbers and Leviticus.  In a typical passage, like Numbers 18.21-24, it is a compulsory obligation to maintain the work of the Levites from the resources made available from tithe giving.  This giving of the tenth or a tithe has been maintained as a model or principle on Jews and Christians ever since.  In a typical conservative congregation, all the passages about tithing will be familiar. In many other authoritarian religious groups, whether or not part of the Christian tradition, it is applied as a matter of course.  Full membership of that organisation will be withheld unless it can be shown that the member is giving a full tenth of their income.

It is my understanding that the income needed to own property in London, or one of the prosperous areas of the southeast of Britain, is well in excess of £80,000.  Any church catering to this section of the population and has successfully persuaded them to give a tithe of their income, will be enormously wealthy.  We see evidence of this kind of wealth when we see congregations in London employing and housing up to 14 clergy alongside support staff of various kinds.  Tithing, when it is followed through and literally practised, allows many conservative parishes to be both wealthy and exercise considerable power within their dioceses and networks.  The power that comes with such institutional wealth is not always used well.  Sometimes money is withheld from central church funds as a way of trying to manipulate bishops to follow a particular line of teaching favoured by the conservative group.  If we think of the various sections of the Church of England as resembling political parties, we can see clearly how the uber-wealthy right wing conservative section of the Church has the loudest voice in many of the debates over sexuality and other issues, where Christian beliefs and politics coincide.

My reader will not be surprised to learn that I believe that there are other problems to be faced over tithing apart from using parish wealth to promote church political agendas.  My comments on the potential dangers of being part of a tithing congregation are based, not on an individual Church of England parish but on the experience of those whose lives were seriously damaged by their membership of Peniel Church Brentwood.  This congregation, now Trinity Church, is an independent Pentecostal church formerly under Bishop Michael Reid.  Reid, as my long-term readers will know, presided over this cult-like church which attempted to provide for every social and spiritual need among its members.  The more involved that the members became in the life of the church, the more their own power for making decisions over things like jobs, careers, relationships and social life came under the scrutiny and control of the church and its leaders.  As contact with non-member family lessened, so a dependence on the leadership and its approval for all their life decisions increased.  Peniel was clearly at the extreme end of a spectrum of cult-like controlling congregations, but the financial aspects of its life seem to be similar to any church insisting that it has the authority to decide on the level of church giving from its members.  There are two major questions that should be asked by anyone who becomes convinced of the necessity for tithe giving.  In the Old Testament passages that support the idea of the tithe, the tenth, was clearly money that supported the work of the priests and the maintenance of worship conducted in the temple or elsewhere.  The influence of the Temple officials extended to cover a legal system and the areas of administration of society now the responsibility of a civil service. The claim that the money was ‘giving to God’ could be justified since everyone would have accepted the understanding that the whole of society belonged to God.  Such a claim would not work today.  The resources need to keep our schools, police forces and hospitals are paid for by the taxes we pay.  Few people apart from the wealthy can realistically pay a tithe out of the money that remains.  Money of course is needed but the teaching that Numbers provides literal guidance over what should be paid is a position that needs to be debated.  Meanwhile we note that the money that pours into conservative parishes is not just paying the salaries and housing of numerous curates, it is, as we have suggested, also buying power and ‘political’ influence in a church where power is about control of the entire institution.  The genius of the traditional Church of England has always valued the simultaneous coexistence of different styles of worship and even theologies so that everyone may find a spiritual home.  The contemporary scene is one where the theology in operation within the powerful conservative congregations is oppositional.  There is only room here for a single theological narrative, the one favoured by the leader. The internal logic of having a theology that is inerrant demands that you seek to dominate and even destroy whoever does not agree with you.  The language of conflict and raw power is in practice muted in theological discussions, but one still senses in conversations with conservatives how little understanding they have of those who do not understand or concur with the idea that ‘Scripture clearly teaches’.  The politicisation of church life, which is in process today, gives us a painful conflict between those who continue to search for and explore truth and those believe they already have it.    Members of churches which believe they possess the truth are giving large sums of money, not to God but to enable an unholy conflict aimed at undermining and discrediting those who continue to search and ask questions of their faith.

A second question to be asked of those who give a tithe of their income is whether it is being given freely and with joy.  Without knowing, of course, the precise message that accompanies the call for a tithe in conservative churches, one suspects that there is often a hidden element of compulsion about the appeal.  At Peniel the compulsion was open and blatant.  If you don’t give what we determine is your due, then you cannot claim membership of this congregation.   Another way of saying the same thing is to say ‘unless you give a tithe, you do not belong’.  Belonging involves the fulfilment of a powerful area of human need.  Not to belong is to feel the chill air of loneliness and rejection.  In a Christian context the failure to belong evokes another deeper anxiety, the loss of salvation and a rejection from the hope of heaven.  Thus, the giving of a tithe is not being on a path to the joy of spontaneous giving.   Rather, it is a way of avoiding the burden of fear, one that has been placed on one’s back by a manipulative leadership.  This leadership may well be interested also in using the tithe from their members to increase their prestige and power.  In independent churches like Peniel the tithe allowed for for the boosting of the financial status of leaders to an extraordinary degree.  In the case of Michael Reid and his successor, Peter Linnecar, this involved enormous salaries of £70k+ being received by these leaders.  Another financial ‘scam’ that allowed leaders to benefit from the wealth of other tithing churches within their network, was to invite their leaders to preach and then, after accommodating them in luxury hotels, reward them with an enormous love offering.  This invitation would naturally be reciprocated and Peniel’s leaders would jet across the world to preach and receive the same lavish hospitality.   Looking at the practice of giving and receiving business class preaching invitations, one sees something close to a simple racket.   Whether the multimillion tithe giving congregations in the Church of England ever practise the same system of sponsoring each other’s leaders is not something I can know.  Certainly, extravagant pulpit swaps are a feature of church life in the States, and it must be tempting for aspiring leaders in the conservative circles in this country to be on the look-out for such opportunities.

Tithing one’s income to give generously to the local church would appear a way to stave off the ever-present threat of insolvency and debt in many congregations.  But, as we have claimed, the successful imposition of such an incredibly high standard is likely to be combined with a darker narrative.  Within the world of tithing congregations, there is likely to be manipulation, stress and straightforward fear.  I find that even the use of the word brings into my mind controlling and coercive relationships in which emotional blackmail is widely practised.   I end with my two questions.  Where does the money really go?  Is this high standard of giving really being achieved without the benefit of manipulative methods, such as bullying, indirect threats and the imposition of fear? The Lord loves a cheerful giver.  I am not sure he wants anyone who has been bludgeoned into parting with more that can be afforded. 

by Martin Sewell

Trust is a most precious commodity in all walks of life, public private and personal. Readers of the Surviving Church blog will be painfully aware from the stories and opinions shared and discussed in this corner of the internet,  how frequently matters of concern are rooted in such breaches, trust is plainly one of our most core values.

It is universal, and even transcends species. Many of us build bonds with our pets; guide dog owners place their very lives in the hands of their trusted companions  and even wild ferocious animals occasionally enter into trust relationships with humans. When we see this we marvel at how trust overcomes justifiable suspicion and fear.

Trust permeates most of our human activities; the cheer leading young girl at the top of a human pyramid and the army private each  places their trust in others, even putting their lives and well-being  at risk. We expect it to be present in commercial relationships, friendships, families and social activities. We routinely trust our medical professionals, our transport providers our gas fitters and a multitude of others with whom we interact. It is the bedrock of civilised societies.

Those of us brought up in the immediate post war years recall those times with a fondness which later generations may find hard to comprehend. As children we would leave home for hours with our parents having little knowledge of where we were or what we were up to. My own father spoke of walking 2 miles unaccompanied to school in East London during the 1920s. This was not neglect but societal trust; there was an expectation of safety and an implied confidence in other adults to help if the infant needed help. If in doubt one was told to “ask a policeman”.

Such a cohesive trusting society was built in part by a community unified by a common faith and shared language but it was also shaped through the lens of two devastating world wars which, for all their destructive horror,  had engendered a sense of unity and collective national identification and purpose. Servicemen in peril could not afford to be choosey about who afforded them help support or rescue and one was grateful for every part of the mechanism that was capable of prolonging life and returning one home.

We need to remind ourselves that Europe was delivered from the Nazi threat by a segregated army; nevertheless, young white soldiers from Mississippi or Alabama might not share facilities back home with their black black comrades, but when either did their duty and came to the others’ rescue there was a trust discharged and a shared  sense of gratitude and success.

It was the same General Dwight Eisenhower who refused the distraction of desegregating an army in wartime, who as President sent the 101st Airborne to enforce school integration if Little Rock in 1954. Passing through the testing fire – “adversity survived” – brought people together. Those of us who lived in the trust society that continued for many years remember and should commend its virtues.

In sad contrast, we are currently in a very untrusting phase of our national life. There are greats tension across many parts of our modern society because trust has been degraded and betrayed; examples are to0 numerous to list but within the Establishment, the institutions of Monarchy, Church, Parliament, BBC etc there has been a massive undermining of trust within a relatively short period of time.

In part this is attributable to the speed of modern communication which facilitates disclosure, but we appear to be seeing a destruction of public trust at a faster rate than ever before. There have always been failures, but the pig headed refusal to respond adequately in many parts of the privileged culture has been thoroughly unhelpful.

There is another important strand within the problem; the cultural growth of atomised individualism. The philosophy of post-modernism has undermined confidence in our nation, culture and society; this was philosophically deliberate. Simultaneously migration has brought in communities that still operate largely on culturally cohesive principles. If “we Brits” ( whosoever we define that term ) have ceased to have trust in our own institutions and with one another, can anyone be surprised that there is a lack of trust of other communities, whether well integrated or not?

This is a big can of worms, the resolution of which is beyond the scope of one blog post.

It is also way beyond the  Church of England, which is but one small part of a wider set of Christian and other faith communities, here and abroad. Unfortunately I do not expect its House of Bishops or General Synod to remain free from the kind performative pronouncements beyond their remit or expertise.

I hope the CofE becomes justifiably modest in what it thinks it can contribute to this debate on the Crisis of Trust in our national life.

There is good precedent for urging such an narrow focus.

It is all very well to point out  to the specks in the eyes of other people but when it comes to the issue of trust, the Established Church has multiple beams in its own eye as this blog and its knowledgeable commentariat has well documented.

Speaking personally, and having seen Church of England governance at close quarters over several years at Synod, I am convinced that the this corner of the Establishment has much to be modest about. Drawing from that experience of close observation, my three pieces of advice to Church leaders are succinct.

1. If you want to be taken seriously on the national stage, put your own house rapidly in order,  with radical secular truthfulness as your core value. Bluntly – trust the Nolan Principles of selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership over partisan theological exegesis.

2) If you want to be trusted – be trustworthy.

3) Be the Humble Church.

.

by Ruth Grayson

I sometimes wonder if the Church has lost its sense of priorities.  

Some time ago,  we wanted to attend a service of dedication for a well dressing in a nearby Derbyshire village.  But the relevant parish website contained no information about any services, even regular Sunday ones.  Nor  were there any contact details for a local vicar.  The only telephone number listed was that of the safeguarding officer. 

Another time, I was taken aback by the message in an ‘out of office’ autoreply from the chaplain of a Christian centre.  This stated that while no one would be available to answer emails until the following Monday,  I should ring an alternative number if I had a safeguarding concern.  No matter if I had another pastoral issue, a health or relational crisis, or indeed if I was feeling suicidal.  Any problem not relating to safeguarding could evidently wait a few more days.

I doubt if either of these experiences is unusual.  Most church websites now have a page dedicated to their particular safeguarding policies.  In some cases, as in that of the parish church mentioned above, contact details for a safeguarding officer are more prominently displayed than those for a vicar, minister or pastor.  It can easier to find safeguarding information than details of services, other church activities, or indeed any statement about the church’s purpose and mission.  References to safeguarding exponentially outnumber references to God in many if not most websites.

If this is not enough, to reinforce their commitment to safeguarding, churches also seek to reassure themselves that those wishing to serve it in any way should undergo safeguarding training.  This can apply even to support functions, such as arranging flowers, making coffee, singing in entirely adult choirs, reading a lesson or leading intercessions, as well as to the more obvious leadership roles involving regular contact with vulnerable people such as children and the elderly.  While I can see the point of screening and training courses for those engaged in these roles as well as in any pastoral or one-on-one activities, I fail to see their relevance in many other cases.  I am not the first to baulk at this.  In 2010, a group of flower-arranging ladies in Gloucester cathedral made national headlines by resigning en masse in protest at the sacking of one of their number for refusing to undergo a [then] CRB check. 

The following communication from a church office was sent to members of its adult choir: …we are very concerned to do everything to make our church as safe for everyone to attend as we can. We are also concerned that everyone who takes on a role is suitably resourced. Moreover, following the various high profile cases against some who have been in positions of authority and trust in the church yet used this as a vehicle to abuse, the Church of England is committed to changing the culture of the whole church to one of honesty and openness, where no would be abuser has a place to hide and where everyone, child or adult, can feel safe. One of the ways they are attempting this is to ensure that everyone who has a role in the church undertakes safeguarding training to an appropriate level and that this is renewed every three years.  

For your role/s of Singer  [in the choir]  you are required to complete the following training Safeguarding Basic Awareness (C0).

This email resulted in one choir member promptly leaving the group.  One outcome of this ‘surfeit of safeguarding’ is that churches are losing some of their existing volunteers and are failing to recruit others.  But there is another development that is equally worrying.  It may be fostering an atmosphere of distrust in the church – the very opposite of what it is intended to do, and the very opposite of what a church stands for.

A notorious example of this is the now discredited case against the late Bishop George Bell of Chichester.  A major factor in this case was almost certainly the context of the times as well as of its location.  The diocese of Chichester did, sadly, have a very bad reputation with regard to genuine cases of child sexual abuse,  and it had been the subject of a number of investigations and official reviews for some time.  To this background must be added the growing awareness of abuse in society at large, brought about by the Soham murders at the beginning of the 21^st century and the subsequent introduction of CRB and later DBS checks in many public and private organisations. 

Another factor in the Bell case must be the fallout from the Jimmy Savile case that resulted in the growth in the #MeToo movement.  That not all allegations were genuine was highlighted by the outcomes of such high profile investigations as Operation Yewtree in the 2012-13 and the Henriques report following Operation Midland in 2019.  Meanwhile, an inordinate amount of damage was done to individual reputations and the lives and careers of those concerned as well as to their families.  One victim was (Lord) Leon Brittan, who died without ever knowing that his name had been cleared.  And a number of priests and vicars have lost their jobs and not been reinstated despite having been cleared of any wrongdoing.  At least one such person has committed suicide. Such is the effect of public opinion, however wrongly informed.

In the case of George Bell, the knee-jerk reaction by the archiepiscopal and diocesan authorities to the posthumous allegation of abuse 60 years after his death is perhaps a classic example of the febrile atmosphere caused by such trends and the overkill in their response.  This is explored more fully in a newly published book on the case https://www.ekklesiapublishing.co.uk/books/presumption-of-guilt/.  While by no means the sole factor, overzealous safeguarding concerns almost certainly played a part in the way the diocesan core group handled the allegation.  This can, as in the Bell case, lead to an immediate presumption that the person named in the complaint is guilty; and because of the Church’s reluctance to adhere to independent procedures for investigation and assessment it quickly results in a slur on, if not the actual ruination of, that person’s reputation, regardless of the eventual outcome.

The need for independent oversight of church safeguarding was highlighted in the recent IICSA report but has yet to be implemented.  Currently the Church is acting as both judge and jury in such cases, and is completely ignoring the basic principle of the legal system in this country: that of the presumption of innocence.  In general, too, a DBS check means that an individual must prove innocence, whereas in law it is for the prosecution to prove guilt.  And of course such a check is only as good as the day on which it is done.

This raises one final question.  What evidence exists to show that all these checks, courses and safeguarding measures are helping to reduce abuse throughout the Church?  Indeed, how could this be measured?  The number of cases reported in the press does not seem to have diminished in recent years, as manifested by examples highlighted by the Soul Survivor and Nine o’Clock scandals and the cover-ups at a very senior clerical level noted in the Makin report. 

Moreover, the costs involved in implementing the current approach are clearly substantial.  All 42 dioceses of the C of E in England must have a safeguarding officer on their staff, sometimes supported by one or more administrators; backed by a National Safeguarding Team to produce training materials and courses.  Meanwhile, my own experience would indicate that more people may be put off any kind of church work under the present system than are caught committing any form of abuse.  And it is certainly well known that abusers are adept at operating ‘under the radar’ and may escape detection for many years, if not for life, whatever precautions may be taken to try to stop them. 

None of this is to say that the Church does not need to have safeguarding practices.  It most certainly does, and they have been too long in coming.  But the system at present is akin to taking a sledghammer to crack a nut, and the nuts that are being cracked are not the right ones. Ultimately, safeguarding is the responsibility of the state, and the Church needs to acknowledge this.  The George Bell case was referred to the police not once, but twice, and thrown out not once, but twice.  It took two independent reviews and considerable expense before it grudgingly admitted its error in taking the law into its own hands.

Safeguarding should be seen as one aspect of the Church’s core function of ‘bringing good news to the poor’, not as a mission in itself.  A good place to start would be by working with the law to uphold the presumption of innocence, which passing names to the vicar or safeguarding officer of any local church completely undermines.  And within an individual church, it means subsuming safeguarding policies under a more general heading of pastoral care than is currently the case in too many instances. A better sense of its priorities might thereby be regained.

Ruth Grayson

by Anon

Readers of this blogsite won’t be at all surprised that the Charity Commission are once again breathing down the neck of the Church of England on safeguarding.  The Charity Commission press release issued on 14^th November 2025 stated that ‘the Archbishops’ Council of the Church of England must rapidly accelerate the delivery of safeguarding improvements and close gaps in its approach to handling complaints’. The Charity Commission, as the regulator, has therefore issued the following (extremely severe) warning: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/church-of-england-charity-must-rapidly-accelerate-safeguarding-reforms

That warning is long overdue. But why is the Archbishops’ Council dragging its feet? Why do the bishops resist independent oversight and scrutiny in this sphere? The answer lies in three main areas of concern, each of which comprises a triplet of issues. In highlighting each triplet, these matters must now be passed on to the Charity Commission as matters that need their proper regulatory action

The first of triplet concerns the deliberate weaponization of safeguarding by bishops in order to persecute their own clergy.  We are aware of multiple instances where bishops wishing to bully, discipline, silence or subdue their clergy deliberately subject those same clergy to unspecified, vague or false allegations of ‘safeguarding concerns’. There are numerous examples of bishops doing so, and here we pick three. 

First, clergy complaining about bishops failing in their safeguarding duties will have the allegations turned against them.  We have found many examples of clergy being threatened with allegations of ‘safeguarding concerns’ for simply whistleblowing on poor safeguarding practice. This is pure bullying and malevolence, with Archbishops and Bishops all engaged in this misconduct.

Second, we are well aware of deliberately false evidence, forged risk assessments and other malfeasance in several cases where diocesan bishops have sought, intentionally, to discredit, destroy or humiliate their own clergy. None of these cases ever gets to a CDM proceeding, as the church courts are regarded as creatures of the episcopacy, and justice to ordinary clergy will invariably and frequently be denied.

Third, it has become commonplace for bishops to threaten their clergy with the potential for ‘safeguarding concerns’ in order to secure their compliance or exit. When this fails, bishops have resorted to issuing public statements airing their concerns, only later withdrawing the defamatory statement after the clergy have suffered much personal damage and subsequent reputational harm.

The second triplet of issues concerns the Church of England’s repeated dishonesty using the term ‘independent’. The Bishops and Archbishops deliberately mislead the public in deploying the term at all, and the Charity Commission needs to intervene to prevent further ongoing abusive misconduct. Here, we cite three examples.

First, the Northern Irish safeguarding consultants, Ineqe, are paid for by the Church of England to benchmark its safeguarding work. Ineqe are not ‘independent’ of their client. Ineqe are not subject to any professional regulatory body, and there is prima facie evidence of this firm scheming to cover up shameful malpractice in the Church of England’s safeguarding work.

Second, despite public protestations that the Church of England cannot be seen continuing to ‘mark its own homework’ in safeguarding, it has taken no steps whatsoever to change this culture of self-serving conceit. The suspicion is that this sick culture will continue to mislead and abuse until the Charity Commission strips the Church of England of its self-validating deceptions.

Third, the standard of jurisprudence at work in Church of England safeguarding has all the safety and robustness of medieval witch trials. Unaccountable officers subject to zero external professional regulatory scrutiny remain free and at large to accuse and abuse at will, or, decide not to act if that protects those in power. The potential to be dangerously corrupt is baked into this structure, and we are aware of bishops who use this unfettered power with malicious intent.

The third triplet of issues concerns the vested interests of the parties who stand to lose the most if safeguarding compliance and regulation is posited with a genuinely independent third party.

First, the unregulated, largely unprofessional and certainly unaccountable Church of England safeguarding staff will be exposed as inconsistent, with shockingly variable standards of compliance, definitions, practices and policies.  Their incompetence will also be exposed, and there is a colossal caseload of examples. The officers in the dioceses and at NST level have much to fear and a huge amount to lose from proper independent regulation.

Second, the self-interest and financial gains of the ecclesiastical lawyers will be severely impacted by proper professional independent regulation of Church of England safeguarding. The present arrangements are a proverbial gravy train for ecclesiastical law firms, and they will be first in the queue to advise General Synod that ‘independent regulation and delivery of safeguarding will not work…’ and then provide multiple reasons for maintaining the status quo. Bluntly, the church lawyers make a great deal of money out the malfeasance and incompetence at work in the present arrangements. Naturally, they will advise Synod to maintain the status quo.

Third, there is a substantial corpus of prima facie evidence for seriously corrupt practices in Church of England safeguarding. False allegations weaponised, forged evidence, falsified documents, bishops deliberately contriving to use safeguarding as leverage to abuse or remove clergy all adds up to a very unsavoury and unhealthy culture. The Archbishops’ Council are fully aware of much of this evidence, yet will (of course), deny such evidence exists. But there is a substantial body of such evidence, and it is now high time that the Charity Commission acted to strip the Church of England of its roles and responsibilities in this domain.

So, we call on the Charity Commission to engage with the evidence it already has in its possession. The Charity Commission well knows that the Archbishops’ Council is not to be trusted, and that the word of any Bishop or Archbishop on safeguarding these days has absolutely no value whatsoever. Indeed, the Church of England’s bank balance on morality and integrity is in a frightful state of crippling negative equity. It is literally bankrupt. And it is high time that the Charity Commission accepted that the word of the Archbishops’ Council carries no weight with victims of abuse, or the wider church. 

The Archbishops’ Council has become a byword for moral indolence and serpentine dishonesty. They bring the Church of England into disrepute. The Archbishops’ Council is a charity that has failed, and it will continue to fail the Church of England if left to its own devices.

For all the reasons stated above, and for the sake of all the victims who continue to suffer under the lamentable, incompetent and corrupt Church of England safeguarding practices and culture, we request the Charity Commission, to intervene and prevent further harm. The Church of England cannot and will not reform itself. It has too much to lose. So, the Charity Commission must step in to end this farcical and harmful situation. Enough is enough.

by Martin Sewell

The melancholy days of November are a perfect time for our nation’s traditional commemoration of our war dead. For centuries the country has been served by its soldiers and sailors, some were following tradition, some sought adventure, still others were pressed into service, whilst others were driven by economic necessity.

Despite historic heroism across the globe on land and sea, the ordinary man was not accorded the same recognition as Clive of India, the Duke of Marlborough, Horatio Nelson, Arthur Gordon of Khartoum etc.

That indifference to “Tommy Atkins” changed after the 11th November 1918. Between the first 1914 combat death of Pt J Parr and that of the tragic Pt GE Ellison who died immediately before the armistice hour, millions of ordinary men from across Britain and its Empire had enlisted and endured the unspeakable horrors of industrial warfare, for which few had had the slightest preparation. .

It is equally  hard for modern Britons to comprehend the depth of that sorrow and loss at the conclusion of hostilities. Out of a UK population of 39m some 900k had been killed; few of whom had had any expectation of military service.  Loss on such cataclysmic scale needed expression in multiple ways. A temporary wooden Cenotaph was erected in Whitehall as a focus for grief, for the first anniversary of peace; it was replaced by the now familiar stone edifice the following year.

 At the same time, the vision of the Revd David Railton MC came to fruition. As an Army Chaplain, sitting by a garden grave of an unknown British Soldier in Armentiéres in 1916,  he conceived idea that the families of such soldier needed and should have a tangible place to which to make a pilgrimage of grief. He shared the idea of a Tomb of the Unknown Soldier with the Dean of Westminster who secured the support of the Prime Minister and eventually the King who had initially hesitated, lest it detract from the recently erected Cenotaph. Crucial support came from Chief of the General Staff Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson, who told the King “ no words could tell how proud we officers and men would be to have one of our simple soldiers buried in Westminster Abbey”.

When that anonymous representative body had been gathered and randomly selected from four drawn from four Western Front battlefields, it was interred in the Abbey in the presence of 100 holders of the Victoria Cross and nearly 100 widows, each of whom had lost a husband and five sons to the service of their country. That representative “Everyman” might be anyone from anywhere; he could be the son of an English reader unionist, a gay under-age butcher’s boy from Limerick or a Quaker stretcher bearer.

In the week following week, a million grieving people filed past the grave. I wonder how many of us can generate a tenth of the empathy needed to grasp the depth of that emotional response of our forebears.

The traditional red poppy similarly arose from the needs of ordinary people and their egalitarian impulses. The Royal British Legion came into being in 1921 launching its first poppy appeal that year. It merged four associations of old comrades drawing them to focus upon the many needs of ex-servicemen three decades before the Welfare State came into existence.

The “Earl Haig Fund” may seem a curious choice of name to those educated in modern times; was he not the Commander whose orders sent so many to death and dreadful injury? In reality, his efforts to alleviate the suffering of his soldiery after the war was so appreciated that when he was buried, more people turned out to line the streets of London to honour and and mourn him, than responded to the death of Princess Diana.

His post-war legacy extended beyond its important charitable purpose . The Royal British Legion under his leadership channelled the mindset of military veterans into the support of old comrades with a focus on the pity of war. This may have contributed to a reluctance to re-arm as the threats of renewed war returned in the 1930s, however such a national ecology of remembrance of sacrifice meant that almost uniquely in Europe, Britain did not produce at scale the-old soldier cultures which evolved into the militaristic  fascist and communist movements across so much of Europe.

As the late Harold Macmillan famously reproved Sir Oswald Mosely for his un-British ways “When an Englishman goes marching,  he does not wear a black shirt- he puts on a tweed jacket and flannel trousers”.

Our expressions of Remembrance today need to remain anchored in those origins. The form may rightly embrace a proud recognition and appreciation for the precision and efficiency of the military, but the underpinning are rooted in our Christian heritage. The words of “ I vow to thee my country” penned by a deeply grieving father, are not jingoistic words extolling an Empire but expressions of hope founded upon sacrifice, pointing to a better, perfect  place, built upon idealism,  because otherwise, such sorrow is unbearable.

In Britain our Remembrance rituals are  infused with the Christian sentiment which framed it, but in France, with which I am proudly familiar, their ritual is secular but no less moving. In the tiny commune in which I have a house, the villages gather round the war memorial – always on the day of the Armistice. The military send a small contingent and the local school children read each of the names of the commune fallen – around 60 men from a commune of 600. As each name is spoke, a single voice intones “ Mort pour La France” That phrase sounds like bell  tolling and as it repeats and repeats the full impact of that community’s loss is brought home. I always drive home looking at the homes on the way reflecting on how the news arrived of a father, sons, friends and neighbour within those walls.

Outside another French commune, on the fringe of the wood where he died fighting with his resistance comrades, a rather unusual name will be claimed for France. Rudolph Pfandaur was an Austrian who, at the height of Nazi power in Europe deserted the German army. Especially remarkable is the fact that he joined the Resistance, who accepted him. His native German speaking and genuine Army uniform was a real asset. When the wood was surrounded in 1944, some of his group surrendered, survived and told his story in later years, but Rudolph knew that for him, surrender was not an option, and with others fought to the last.

How trust in him was ever engendered I will never know, but knowing a fragment of his story wins him a regular place in my Remembrance recollections during the 2 minutes silence. Perhaps for him we should intone “ Died for Humanity”.

In recent times, some have sought to import division and discord into our national day of remembrance; there are 364 days in which to debate controversy and satellite causes. It is right and proper that on one day each year we set other considerations temporarily aside and insist that the rituals thoughtfully assembled for us by the grieving of the Great War, should be respected.

Within that envelope of collective pity, there is room for everyone, man, woman, gay, Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh,  Jew, Empire Loyalist, Socialist, Conservative, Liberal, Anarchist; nobody is excluded from Remembrance, whether they be personally mourned within family and/or community recollection, or even forgotten; collectively as a nation “We will remember them”.

It is the most inclusive day of the year 

Film clip of the inauguration of the Cenotaph in 1920

Followers of this blog will be getting used to the slower output of material to read and discuss on Surviving Church.   After over ten years and a million and half words of output, it was inevitable that your editor would find that ideas for reflection and comment would become less regular and routine.  In the past I found that there were sometimes several ideas inside my head at once, waiting for an opportunity to be articulated.  Now I have to be patient in waiting for something to strike my thinking.  Blog ideas are often inspired by something in the news or something we are made aware of by our participation in one of the seasons of the church’s year.   The regular rhythm of these different liturgical seasons commemorated by the church has always provided rich material to ponder.  The internet itself provides material for reflection as we travel with the help of our liturgy and its accompanying music from one Christian season to another.

As I write these words (on the Friday before Remembrance Sunday) I am acutely aware of the way that this time of year presents us with two very solemn moments for commemoration. The first is the feast of All Souls when many churches invite their congregations to come together to read out names of the departed in front of the altar.  Candles are lit and this simple physical act allows us to believe that those who have died and are seen no more, are in some sense alive in the presence of God.  The second commemoration on Remembrance Sunday extends our remembering beyond the circle of immediate family and friends.  It identifies with the nation’s grieving for all who sacrificed their lives in fighting and helping to preserve the nation in the face of threats to its identity.  The word that joins both these events is the simple word remember.  Remembering members of our families who have died and the young men and women who sacrificed everything to defend the nation are solemn acts and ones that we should never let go.   To do so would impoverish something very deep within us.

What does remembering a deceased person actually involve?  At the very least It means thinking about them and bringing them into our memories so that their existence as members of the human race is acknowledged.  We all hope to be remembered when we have left this earth, even if the only people who remember us for a time are the members of our families.  We do, of course, live in some sense through our genes but there is something important about being remembered by those who come after us.  It is important for us now to know that those who will think about us when we are gone will have memories suffused with affection and some degree of gratitude that we existed.   

In thinking about the act of remembering the dead, it is helpful to be reminded of the very different perspective contained in the Hebrew bible.  Here we are introduced to some different ideas about memory as well as a strikingly different attitude towards time.  We think of time as a continuing sequence of events.  When things happen, they then quickly become part of the past; they are never going to happen again in the same way.  The effects caused by past events may still linger on, but the actual event can never be fully retrieved. For the Hebrew/Jewish mind there are certain episodes in the past that are remembered in a special way.  These are pivotal and archetypal moments and they are those involved with the Jewish belief that God has actively intervened in particular historical events to save his people.  If God acted to save his people from the plagues in Egypt or at the crossing of the Red Sea, then the hope is that he can and will remember his people again in the present and in the future.  Much of Jewish prayer is the request to God to ‘remember’ his actions in the past so that he will accomplish the same saving acts in the context of a new historical crisis.  The Hebrew way of thinking believes that ‘reminding’ God of what he has already done is a legitimate part of prayer. 

A further dimension of memory which is present in Jewish prayer is found in the sacrificial system practised in biblical times.  It is hard for us to enter the mentality that believed killing animals was somehow part of what God required of his people, but there is an understandable logic at work in this practice.  Killing animals and either spreading their blood around or burning them whole has little to commend it today in the West.  But underlying the practice is the transactional idea that one can give to God so that he will look favourably on his people.  The idea that we are required to give of ‘ourselves, our souls and bodies’ as an offering to obtain favour from God is one that is found everywhere in the pages of Scripture.   For me the classic transactional idea in Scripture is clearly set out in Psalm 132.  The psalmist in the first verse pleads to Yahweh to remember David.    At this point David is not alive but his action in building the Temple, ‘a habitation for the mighty God of Jacob’, allows the psalmist to expect in return for what David did, Yahweh will maintain David’s line and the city of Jerusalem for ever under his protection.  Episodes from the past which demonstrate God’s power and protection for his people can always be liturgically remembered so that the same power can be experienced today.

I think I must have at some point in past blog posts spoken about the way that this way of thinking about remembering a past event, so that it can be re-experienced or re-played in the present, is important as we try to understand the meaning of ‘memorial’ in the context of the Eucharist.  To remember the death of Christ is, in this Jewish framework of understanding, to make that death and all that flows from it present and available to us today.  This highly enriched understanding of the word memory is not obvious to us today, but it becomes clear when we have allowed ourselves to share the Hebrew understanding of what it means to remember something in the past where God was unambiguously at work.  Our English word remember makes it less easy to glimpse the full dynamic of what is involved with Jews remembering the Passover, or Christians remembering the self-offering of Christ on the Cross.

To summarise these rich ideas about the way that time, for the Jewish thinker, is sometimes collapsed so that the past can be brought into close relationship with the present, helps to penetrate the deeper meaning of memory as we are thinking about this season of Remembrance.  Remembrance Sunday and All Souls Day are both acts of giving honour and respect to groups who are no longer with us.  To remember is to place the dead in the hands and mercy of God.  A summary of what we want and pray for them is that the departed are given life by being ‘remembered’ by God.  We do not know exactly what that might mean in practice, but clearly, we want to live in the mind of God as the departed live within our minds and affections. 

I imagine that there are few people who have escaped the news and speculation concerning the now ex-Prince Andrew and the wider Royal Family.  I have no intention here of looking at this extensive coverage of Andrew’s woes, but I would like to consider a single word which is the title of a book about the former Duke of York and his family.  The word I am referring to is ‘entitled’.  It describes an attitude to life which is a common by-product of having almost unlimited privilege and wealth granted to an individual.  The word normally carries a negative connotation.  It implies that the individual who is indulged and has access to privilege without limit in one area of life, expects somehow that they should awarded similar treatment everywhere else.   The toddler who never learns the meaning of restraint from his/her parents will often grow up to be insufferable as a child.  Such children are described as ‘spoilt’ and the damage to them is often carried right through to their adulthood.  The spoilt child becomes the spoilt and entitled adult, though the areas of early over-indulgence are not necessarily to do with material wealth and possessions.

 Many people might consider that to have access to unlimited wealth and privilege is something highly desirable.  Indeed, we can understand how the burdens of debt and poverty suffered by many people make them long to be rich.  Just a little of the great wealth of the privileged uber-rich would, they think, quickly solve all their financial problems.  Wealth, too much or too little, is indeed a problem for many people.  One group find they have insufficient to pay for what they need – food, shelter and adequate provision for families.  Another group have more than enough, and thus they come to take for granted lifestyles that most of us cannot imagine.   Serious problems exist for those at both ends of this spectrum.  The very rich and indulged group sometimes get so used to being pampered by others that they become poor at making relationships and the ordinary skills of life which we use to manage our homes.  In their small section of society, everyone seems to get by and enjoy life without expending any obvious effort.  The ‘set’ they belong to dictates a style of living which promotes holidays, smart parties, alcohol consumption and constant shopping.  This does not, of course describe all wealthy people but there is a solid core of rich entitled people in Britain and elsewhere who are firmly tied into a lifestyle which is determined to extract pleasure and complete self-indulgence at every turn.

The disadvantages of poverty are clear to all, but the drawbacks to wealth are less obvious.  The lifestyle which leads to an individual being described as ‘entitled’ is one where there has been a forgetfulness of who and what they are and how they are still part of humanity, whether poor or rich.  The entitled ones are those who have, in many cases, become disconnected from large swathes of fellow humans who struggle with massive deprivations – hunger, poverty, ill-health, mental illness or disability.  To ignore the needs of others because their existence makes us feel uncomfortable is a kind of self-mutilation.  We deny ourselves the sensitivity to other people’s needs in case we find that our full enjoyment of life is in some way compromised by this exposure.  To put it another way, we draw in our antennae, which are designed to make us aware of need and pain in the world, to protect us and our enjoyment of material things.  To be unaware of need in others or make a deliberate choice to ignore it completely is to make a kind of contract with a devil of indifference so that we hand over part of our humanity in return for a greater intensity of pleasure.

There is another word which is often associated with the word entitled and that is the word ‘deference’.  Our first word, entitled, comes with an inevitable flavour of disapproval but deference is not necessarily a bad thing.  At its best deference acts as a kind of social glue. In very subtle ways, it helps people to negotiate tricky areas of decorum in society so that they know what is expected of them in company.  People functioning in a hierarchical structure, like the British class system, need to know how to behave to preserve their place or position.  Unlike the negative ideas commonly associated with the word ‘entitled’, deference is something that can play a positive role in maintaining stability in social structures.  There are numerous conventions we adhere to which show our common identification with society’s values.  It is still the convention in a court of law to stand when the judge enters, and it is common practice to allow a woman to go through a door ahead of a man.  Problems arise when deference becomes a negative thing – when it is demanded by men and women in places of power and wealth.  In our minds we can distinguish between a valid deference which is earned by its recipients and one which is given or demanded without a proper cause.  When politicians or members of the Royal Family misbehave, the deference we have traditionally held for those in high office is challenged.  We allow ourselves to have the treacherous thought that people ‘set over us’ are not in fact special or morally superior.  While it has been a convenient myth to ascribe social and moral excellence to those who occupy the highest ranks of society, the realities of the past few weeks show this to be far from the true situation.

As I reflected on these two words, entitled and deference, I recognised that both ideas have played a part in the way we think about the Church and its hierarchy.  For good and ill we have inherited a highly complex layered organisation which allows those in the highest ranks to think of themselves as having something approaching a divine authority over others.  Many years ago, I found myself studying some of the mediaeval texts that were used in the so-called Investiture Controversy that preoccupied secular monarchs and church authorities in the early Middle Ages.  One particular piece of writing had enormous influence when it was brought to France in the early 9th century from Constantinople.  The anonymous Greek author, known as the Pseudo-Dionysius, saw the entire cosmos, spiritual and material, as emanating down from God.  In his book, the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, the Church and its liturgies had a crucial role to play in making this downward manifestation of God visible through the act of worship.  Hierarchy, priesthood and sacraments were the given means of participating in the Divine reality.  Secular monarchs (even our British ones) looked to a sacramental authority to receive their kingly status.  Priesthood and kingship were closely aligned ideas and many of us remember the anointing of King Charles that took place behind a screen at the hands of the archbishop and others during the 2023 coronation.  This view of the world as a fixed spiritual/material reality made it easier for elites to exercise their control over societies across mediaeval Europe.  The idea that there might be another way of organising society other than through divinely ordained hierarchies took centuries to be realised.

 The former Archbishop of Canterbury spoke of his frustration at the way deference to authority in the church often detrimentally affected communication across the institution.  My historical observations about the influence of the work, Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, may help us to understand how a form of deference reaching back centuries has been allowed to mark the way people still think about office and power within the Church.  This way of thinking about an institution is not going to be healthy. It allows the leaders (bishops and clergy) to think of themselves as having moral and social authority, whether or not these have not been earned.  Somehow, we have to find a way to banish the spectre of entitlement from the church.  In a complicated and sometimes confusing hierarchical system which allows promotion and ambition, we find an environment where self-inflation, narcissism and hubris are sometimes given free rein.  Historically we have these inherited patterns of authority which allow, in susceptible individuals, the worst forms of overbearing and bullying behaviour to be manifest.  To counteract these unchristian manifestations of power, we must allow ourselves to be constantly challenging those with rank or hierarchical status to pattern themselves after Jesus.  He, after all, had a great deal to say about power and rank and the way that, when they are properly exercised, the one exercising them deserves the honour, deference and respect due to them.  These are the themes we come back to again and again.  It is because the Church often gets things so wrong in these areas that we have allowed our reputation in the court of public opinion to slip dangerously low in recent years.