Readers of this blog cannot fail to have noticed the controversy which has centred around the name Iwerne and latterly, the Titus Trust.  Iwerne is the name of a village in Dorset.  Here, for many years, a school complex, empty during the summer holidays, provided accommodation for summer camps for boys under the leadership of E.J. H. Nash (known as Bash).  In later years, these camps have proliferated and now take place at a variety of centres across the country.   Some of these camps still focus on male pupils from privileged private schools while others are more open and include young people from day schools.  To attend one of the camps in the past, one had to go to one of only about 15 of the most elite boarding schools in England.  Amid the changes that have been overseen by Iwerne/Titus trustees, one thing seems not to have changed.  That is the continuation of a narrow form of Christian teaching, of the kind taught by Bash in the 1930s and continued by his successors.  It is difficult to describe Bash’s theology and the theology of Iwerne in a few words.  It combines conservative Biblical ideas with notions of male elitism.  It could also be said to be anti-intellectual.  Bash himself was said to have based all his teaching on a single 19^th century book by R.A. Torrey, What the Bible Teaches.  This book attempted to place every item of classic Protestant teaching into a series of Bible texts.  Thus, the Iwerne approach never ventured beyond the text of the Bible, even while it was emphasising a version of Christian doctrine that would have been understood better in the 16^th century than in the world of the New Testament.

Ideas have consequences.  Conservative protestant theology has always held many of its followers in a straitjacket of discipline, sometimes even of fear. Notions of hell, handed down to the Protestant reformers from the Catholic middle ages, still had the power to grip the imagination.   Contemplation of Christ’s suffering on the cross also has the power to arouse, in his followers, strong emotions of pity and devotion.  But any emphasis on suffering can, in extreme cases, have malign results.  The Christian adherent might come to believe that deliberately seeking to share the suffering of Christ was part of his vocation.  John Smyth, for a decade the chair of the Iwerne Trust and present at many camps, seems to have followed a reading of Scripture which believed it was spiritually beneficial to suffer and inflict pain.  Christ suffered for our salvation, so it is right that we seek to share his pain and encourage others to do so.  The exact reasoning that Smyth followed, and the way that it fitted into his disordered psychological profile, will never now be known to us.  We may, however, suggest that the closed incestuous world of Iwerne theology made it possible for such distortions of teaching to emerge.  The other con-evo organisations that currently intersect with Iwerne/Titus are also not open to a wider theological vision that could challenge such ideas.  The notion of being ‘sound’, when uttered in this context, seems to be extraordinarily narrow for those of us who look in from the outside.  The theological horizons of the 16^th century are extraordinarily suffocating to many of us reared in broader theological traditions.

In recent days the Titus Trust has put out a statement.  It is reorganising the work of the Trust.  The emphasis is now on organising the camps into regional structures.  But there is one major new change.  The Iwerne name, so long associated with these camps, is to disappear.  Why is this so significant?  It has recently come into the public domain that the Titus trustees, in their attempts to fight legal claims for the historic behaviour of John Smyth, have employed the service of Alder UK.  This, according to Julian Mann who writes for Anglicans Ink, is a very expensive PR firm.  This firm has, in all likelihood, been involved in suggesting that the word ‘Iwerne’ is now toxic.  It is toxic for its association with John Smyth, Jonathan Fletcher and others under police investigation for abuses against boys.  Andrew Graystone helpfully wrote about these wider enquiries in the Church of England newspaper and they are quoted in the recent article by Julian Mann in Anglican Ink. http://anglican.ink/2020/05/06/alleged-iwerne-abuser-now-under-police-investigation/    With at least two reports expected in the next twelve months looking at the careers of two individuals, closely associated with Iwerne, the time has clearly come to jump ship and cast away the Iwerne name.

The wise (probably very expensive) advice handed to the Titus Trustees is understandable.  But there is a problem in this strategy, as Andrew Graystone has pointed out in a statement to Premier Radio.  While it is possible to shed a name, the really important part of reform is to examine the culture of the past and the corrupt theologies that have and continue to have harmful effects on individuals.  When I think about Smyth, I do not just think about the pain he and others inflicted on so many to satisfy perverse appetites.  I think about the way that a theology was allowed to fester within a whole organisation, making it possible for the young men to believe that this treatment was somehow part of Christian discipleship.   Smyth and those like him could only have acted out their nefarious schemes within an organisation that had already, theologically speaking, ‘softened up’ victims to become vulnerable to them.  Iwerne/Titus is responsible for an overall theology that allowed such things to happen.  Whether it was an over-emphasis of the passages from Proverbs about a father disciplining his son or some morbid preoccupation with pain, the background and culture of Smyth’s activities needs to be better understood and then renounced.  It was incubated within Iwerne/Bash’s theology and will continue remain there as long as it is not firmly understood and repented of.  Changing a name will not remove the poison of the past, both in the harm it did and its continuing ideology.

It would be unrealistic to expect Keith Makin and his study of John Smyth to get to grips with the theology of the Winchester and Iwerne beatings.  The only people capable of doing this are members of that network themselves.  I may be cynical but somehow, I doubt that this will ever happen.  The conservative theological tradition within which Titus supporters operate, is not one that seems ever to engage in self-criticism or re-examination.  Whatever else is wrong with liberal theology, it cannot be accused of staleness since it recognises the need to revisit its presuppositions constantly in the light of a changing world.  Theology is always a work in progress for a theologian working in the liberal tradition.  When necessary, thought patterns from the past can be discarded.  With the conservative traditions we have associated with the ReNew constituency which intersects with Titus, there seems to be an atmosphere of permanent defensive thinking.  One of the comments on a previous blog indicated the way that conservative theology seems to be preoccupied in naming other group,s seeming to be in opposition, as enemies.  However much has been spent on the removal of ‘Iwerne’ from the description of the camps that follow in the Bash tradition, those of us who follow the work of Titus will still be reminding readers of the direct links, historically and theologically, to the appalling behaviour of several leaders, including a former chairman of the Trustees.  Titus has the power to break that link but it will need to do more than just order a mere change of name.

On December 27^th last year the Daily Telegraph published, on the front-page, information about the former Vicar of Emmanuel Wimbledon, Jonathan Fletcher and accusations made against him for abusive behaviour.  The previous June, the same newspaper had published a story on the topic, revealing that Fletcher had had his Permission to Officiate withdrawn by the Diocese of Southwark at the beginning of 2017.  There were few details in the June 2019 report about the nature of the offences leading to this ban, so we were left wondering exactly why this action had been taken against a clergyman of such standing and possessing considerable influence within the world of conservative evangelical Anglicanism.  There was obviously a story to be told but the details were not being given at that point.  The December Telegraph account by Gabriella Swerling introduced new material, since she had interviewed five victims of Fletcher’s abusive behaviour.  Without going into the details, she was told of massages, cold baths and other behaviours which, while not technically criminal, were questionable as being part of any recognisable pattern of pastoral care.  Reading through the Telegraph account once again, there is a clear pattern of young impressionable men who were in awe of Fletcher’s power as a guru, father-figure and man of God.  They were thus ripe for abuse at his hands.  Whether it is to be described as sexual abuse or spiritual abuse is probably not important.  Clearly those interviewed had been severely traumatised at the hands of Jonathan Fletcher.

The original Telegraph story of June 2019 had resulted in various responses from a variety of sources.   The ReNew constituency leaders published a statement of regret through an organisation known as the Evangelical Ministry Assembly and some of the speeches relating to the event were broadcast on Youtube.  https://vimeo.com/344888648 I found myself commenting on three occasions as an outside observer.  I was puzzled by various aspects of the case, including the way that the entire Internet had been swept clean of all references to Fletcher.  His online sermons had disappeared and even documents that had contained references to him were ‘edited’ so that his name no longer appeared.  That work must have taken a lot of effort.  For individuals studying the story like me, it just provoked a greater interest in what information there was to be had.  Although the information I presented on this blog contained nothing from the inside, I could not help but notice that the articles I had written were being consulted for months afterwards.  Most blog pieces I write have a circulation lasting at most a week, but interest in Fletcher has been extensive and literally thousands of people have consulted these particular posts. http://survivingchurch.org/2019/06/27/joining-up-the-dots-the-jonathan-fletcher-story/  https://survivingchurch.org/2019/07/01/further-reflections-on-the-jonathan-fletcher-story/

The second aspect of the story that demands comment is the way that, apart from the five anonymous individuals interviewed by the Telegraph, there has been little evidence of new people coming forward to say what they know.   That may have changed in the past few months as there is an enquiry being conducted by Thirty One Eight, the independent safeguarding charity.  They have been commissioned to make this enquiry by Emmanuel Church, Fletcher’s former congregation in Wimbledon.  They were to have delivered the report by this month, but the virus, and larger than expected amounts of information being gathered, have created a delay.  We have absolutely no reason to suppose that they will not accomplish a thorough job and we hope they can help heal some of Fletcher’s victims who have suffered so grievously over the past thirty to forty years.

As my readers who have read earlier blogs will know, the Fletcher affair is deeply intertwined with the Iwerne/Titus story.  Fletcher’s own brother David was the leader/organiser of these camps for many years and for decades also Jonathan was a regular feature there as a speaker.  On one occasion at least he shared a platform with John Smyth.   All this information is available freely on the net and I do not propose to spend any more time recounting it.  What is of importance is what is happening in the present and this may help us to understand new twists and complications in the way the Fletcher saga is to play out over the next year or so.

The first thing I have to report is that there has been an interesting change of personnel among the safeguarding professionals who are involved in the process.  Sarah Hall, who can be viewed on the YouTube video I mentioned above, was the local Emmanuel safeguarding officer for the parish in June 2019.   She now no longer fulfils that role.  She had combined a full-time post as women’s worker with the parish safeguarding officer.  From the video it would appear that Sarah was the front person for local safeguarding concerns at the church.  She is also given as the contact person for the website set up to help Emmanuel survivors, Walking On.  The two people mentioned now as having safeguarding responsibilities are Gilly Briant and John Adams.  I cannot work out when the changeover took place but it is worth noting that John Adams is a member of the ordained staff and thus would not obviously fulfil the independent role normally expected of safeguarding officers.  The second change of role is in the Diocese of Southwark safeguarding team.  Kate Singleton, the Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser, gave up the task around a month ago.  No replacement has yet been appointed.

Changes in personnel do not normally matter but with a case as sensitive as the Fletcher affair, one would want to see continuity being preserved both in the Diocese and in the parish.  When new appointments are made, much background knowledge can often be lost.  In the case of Fletcher, there is an enormous amount of background information to be mastered.  It will be all too easy to blame lost files, the coronavirus and miscommunication for massive errors in the way information is in future gathered and processed.  I add this change of personnel to another piece of information which is also somewhat ominous.  I have been told on good authority that, at the national level of safeguarding, in the offices at Church House, there is no file kept or indeed any interest in the Fletcher case.  Given the enormous exposure of the affair on the front page of a national newspaper, this is a strange position to take.  It was apparently said that the affair should be dealt with purely at the diocesan level.  The changes of staff at local diocesan and parish level together with the indifference of the National Safeguarding Team are, when taken together, evidence of a worrying indifference to the whole case by the central church authorities.  There is clearly no appetite by anyone at the centre to see stones turned over and the past opened up to scrutiny.

What we have left is the independent enquiry by 31-8 which we may see published this autumn.   Let us hope and pray for the sake of victims that this enquiry will be allowed to do its work without interference or impediment of any kind.  From past experience, we have seen other enquiries interfered with or suppressed in some way, when the truths revealed are of embarrassment to the centre.  From the little we already know the truth about Jonathan’s Fletcher’s stewardship of Emmanuel is ugly.  The Church of England as a whole and its inner integrity will not be served if that truth is in any way hidden and lost in ‘the land where all things are forgotten’.

by Gilo

One of the manifestations of power in the Church is what Surviving Church has referred to as ‘social power’.  For some time, Gilo been making a study of this complex world of social elites in British society and the way that they relate to institutions in Britain like the Church of England.  The account that Gilo presents to us here is a detailed glimpse of some of the workings of the Establishment.  It may help us to understand a little better the dynamics of the influences at work which were able to protect Establishment members, like Peter Ball, for so long. Ed.

(Gilo has provided me with the detailed references to back up every statement in this piece.)

The latest addition to the board of Ecclesiastical Insurance as Independent Non-Executive Director is Sir Stephen Lamport. He joins The Very Revd Christine Wilson who  (somewhat questionably) remained a director during the year in which she stood down as Dean of Lincoln owing to a safeguarding complaint brought by Melissa Caslake, the Church’s safeguarding director. Ecclesiastical is the Church of England’s insurer and has come under increasing spotlight for its unethical strategies in relation to the treatment of survivors.

It would seem possible that Lamport has been brought in to redeem the sticky reputation Ecclesiastical has acquired. A reputation courageously and fearlessly referenced by a senior church figure at February’s Synod when she said, “Surely we have the capacity to question our insurers about their practices and indeed our lawyers. It occurred to me that actually we can change insurers if we don’t think their methods are ethical. I change my electricity supplier. I am hoping that when I go back to my diocese some of my colleagues, and I’m sure they will, will be asking me some very difficult questions in diocesan synod.”

Lamport might be the right man for corporate reputational salvage. As former Receiver General of Westminster Abbey and one of the founders of the Westminster Abbey Institute, and a member of the Advisory Board of the Centre for Ethics in Public Policy and Corporate Governance he has a highly developed understanding of issues of ethical behaviour. The Westminster Abbey Institute was founded in 2013 to work “with the public service institutions around Parliament Square to revitalise moral and spiritual values in public life.” Its prestigious Council includes such establishment luminaries as Baroness Butler-Sloss ….. who told an abuse survivor that she did not want to include Bishop Peter Ball in a report in Chichester diocese because she “cared for the Church” and “the press would love a bishop”. The Council also includes Mr William Nye (current Secretary General of Synod), Lord Saatchi and many other eminent figures. Lamport spoke at the Institute in March 2018 on the theme of Truth Sustained “The importance of truth cannot be underestimated. It is at the heart of those things which sustain a civilised society: trustworthiness, dependability, wise decision making and solid relationships.”

Lamport also brings serious credentials as a senior advisor in Sanctuary Counsel, which describes itself as a “boutique advisory firm, providing strategic communications and reputation advice..” I associate ‘boutique’ as an ascription with small expensive hotels. This is a reputation firm which breathes ‘establishment’ and if you’ve never heard of it then you probably couldn’t afford its services nor walk in the circles that needs them. It is so impossibly discreet and ‘boutique’ that its website has a mere two pages which both feel leather-lined.

Sanctuary’s offices by the entrance to Dean’s Yard and Church House are convenient for when Lamport needs to renew his membership of Nobody’s Friends. The Treasurer of Nobody’s is based a few doors down in The Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nobody’s Friends is a shadowy and elite dining club that meets in Lambeth Palace. A “crust” club filled with bishops, senior lawyers, Tory grandees, and public school headmasters. I’ve previously written about it on this blog, and about the links of three of its past members to Westminster cover-ups of Kincora abuse in Belfast. Lamport is to be commended for being one of very few members who openly lists Nobody’s Friends in his Who’s Who listing. Most prefer to keep it hidden.

Lamport brings to Ecclesiastical Insurance further establishment ties – impressive enough to add serious cachet to any board of directors. Previously a Private Secretary to the Prince of Wales, Lamport reportedly still oversees the group of grandees called Operation Golden Orb. This group is responsible for planning Charles’ coronation, and has worked with Lambeth Palace over a long time on such deliberations as the one-throne-or-two conundrum (Queen Camilla, or Camilla the Princess Consort with no throne of her own).

Whilst working for the prince, Lamport was involved in the management of a case of a valet who made a claim of rape by a more senior household servant. According to the Peat report, Lamport wrote to Ms Shackleton (the prince’s divorce lawyer who was also involved in handling the matter) asking if an agreement could be reached with the man in order to “avoid an investigation”. The agreement included payment of £38,000. Ms Shackleton was so disquieted by her experience that she later told Lady Sarah McCorquodale, Princess Diana’s sister: “I was asked to make it go away. It was one of the lowest points in my professional career.” The valet had gone to the police over his rape allegations, but decided not to continue with the complaint after the settlement with the Royal Household. When he died tragically young, his constituency MP Paul Flynn said publicly, “He was very badly treated and they got some of their best public relations people to bad mouth him at the time. They really turned the heat on him. I thought it was pretty disgraceful and he disappeared from the scene because of it. It’s a sad life and a tragic case.” A reading of the Sir Michael Peat report, online in full, into the handling of the matter shows that Lamport was keen to close the thing down with no investigation on the premise that he did not believe the allegation. Protection of the Royal Household and the prince was perhaps more important than proper investigation into a possible crime.

So it is disconcerting that Lamport now advises the board of Ecclesiastical Insurance which deals with survivors cases. It’s also troubling that he’s also a trustee on the board of AllChurches Trust, the charity which owns the insurer. We’ve seen this dual membership before with Sir Philip Mawer, a former Chair of AllChurches who was also a senior independent director of Ecclesiastical while he was a former Secretary General of Synod. It was soon after Mawer’s tenure of power in the Church, and while he was a director of Ecclesiastical, that the insurer started having a ringside seat at the Church’s central safeguarding committee! That sentence merits its exclamation mark. This fact emerged in his first statement at IICSA by Michael Angell, an executive from Ecclesiastical. It seems extraordinary that the insurer was able to observe the church’s safeguarding discussions from mid 1990s through to 2015. Especially when one considers the culture of secrecy, denial and safeguarding failure during this period. The strategic and operational advantage afforded the insurer through observation at close quarters of the Church’s response cannot be underestimated. We can only guess the subtle influences the insurer was able to exert during those decades. And the influences travelling in the other direction. Incidentally, Sir Philip is believed to be still the President of Nobody’s Friends – a position he held in 2015. It’s not who you know – but who you dine with that matters!

One might hope that the Church of England will recognise and address this set of incestuous links. Links already to some extent highlighted in Letters to a Broken Church which has been bought for their dioceses by a number of bishops. 50 copies were also bought by Archbishop’s Council for Synod members. The final IICSA report on the Anglican hearings comes out in August and is likely to be critical of Ecclesiastical’s performance at the Inquiry where it was publicly lambasted. Some of us are aware of further things emerging about Ecclesiastical tactics and its relationship to the Church which are likely to bring further acute embarrassment to their client, the Church. The insurer does not yet seem to have learnt that the only real thing of value they have is their reputation. With all that has so far been brought into daylight – they seem to imagine it can still be business as usual.

Presumably both church and insurer hope Lamport will ride to the rescue. Perhaps he’s being lined up to replace William Nye as next Secretary General of Synod and Secretary of Archbishop’s Council? They tend to like maintaining close links with the insurer. He seems a fit. Or perhaps it’s time they ended these nested ties? And recognise that it’s no longer acceptable to operate a nexus that looks so incestuous in its intertwining as to be in the words of one cleric “a form of quiet English corruption”.

If you ever see a group of nine-year-old children, especially boys, arguing with one another, you can take a good guess at what the argument is about.  The argument will probably be linked to their inbuilt competitiveness.  Each child will be laying a claim to some achievement or having the best of something.  He has the best trainers/mobile phone/ family car or is the tallest/strongest/best at football in the group.  One child in the group may, however, recognise that he has nothing in his life that would count as being the biggest or best, so that when these arguments take place, he holds back.  But then one day he comes into the group with his eyes shining.  For a moment he is the centre of attention.  What has he acquired that makes him suddenly important?  He has obtained a piece of secret information.  It may be a bit of gossip about a teacher or news that a holiday is going to be announced.   For the short moment, while the boy has the secret which no one else possesses, he has the illusion of power.  I want in this post to think further about the power of some information.  Secret information can be a means of either liberation or alternatively the cause of toxic domination over others.   The plot in Oscar Wilde’s play The Importance of Being Earnest centred around a single piece of information becoming known.  The information itself had power to release happiness into the present.  It would not be an exaggeration to think of the hidden information about the abandoned baby as being a kind of extra character in the plot, waiting to reveal itself at the right moment.

Information can be said, on occasion, to possess real power and the bearer of that information can also be seen to exercise this power.  We have of course observed on this blog numerous other ways of exercising power, and many of them have been described.  Today I want to focus on thinking about this way that information, especially when it is secret or restricted, can be a powerful tool of domination, whether in an individual relationship or within an institution.  Secrecy is just one more way that human beings can learn to use and control others.  While the exercise of legitimate power methods is a necessary part of institutional life, we need, however, to be aware of how any manifestation of power, including secrecy, can become a tool of evil when in the wrong hands.

The power that can accrue to someone having secret information is potentially a power that can cause widespread harm.  Secrets often remain hidden for long periods of time but that does not prevent them sometimes wreaking havoc in people’s lives, even while they are still hidden.  In my own thinking about secrets in the church, I have come to see that there are two particular ways in which secrets cause damage to individual people.  Let us examine each in turn.

The first example of a secret is the knowledge of a hidden shameful event from the past.  This knowledge may exist only inside someone’s memory or perhaps is known by another party and is used in some way to control the person involved.  The shame experienced may or may not be linked to something that has been done but the victim of the shame still wants the event to be hidden.  It may be a family scandal or an experience of abuse.  The sufferer dreads it being brought into the open.  This control may not rise to the level of actual blackmail but there will be the ever-present thought that this detrimental information might be revealed at any time.  That can be a constant blight to a person’s life. 

The second kind of secret also concerns a past deed known to a third party.  Here the interest is not in harming the person in any way.  Rather the opposite.  The one with knowledge wants to protect the one who carries guilt from their past activity.  Now the effort is to make sure that the event remains hidden so that also it cannot harm the organisation to which the perpetrator and his co-conspirator both belong.  Secrets are being kept in order to preserve reputations.  No consideration is given either to the demands of morality or keeping people safe.  The preservation of the secret has then the unfortunate consequence that the evil can fester and spread.  Evil flourishes not only because good men do nothing, but these men actually encourage the evil by tacitly tolerating it and refusing to act against it.

The power of the secret, as we can call it, is not only an action which can be the cause of evil among individuals.  It can also permeate the entire culture of an organisation.   We know that there is such a thing as confidentiality in the medical world and most people do not want every fact about their lives spread far and wide.  But some organisations take the principle of confidentiality and use to become a tool of coercive power.   When an organisation chooses to supress information by weeding the files of past embarrassing behaviour by its servants, that is a kind of information holocaust.  Of all the images that came out of the first stage of the IICSA hearing, it was the one describing a former dean returning after his retirement to burn files in the Deanery garden, that was most vivid and telling.  The Chichester cathedral close had been rife with scandal and safeguarding failures.  The power of the secret as a permeating evil spirit could be said to have been haunting the entire cathedral complex. 

Secrecy as a form of power still stalks the institutions and bodies of the Church of England.  The story of safeguarding is a story of cover-ups, information suppression and an apparent unwillingness by many in authority to show metanoia about all the secrets that have been kept by those in authority in the church.  Just to mention the names of Fletcher, Smyth and Ball conjures up images of filing cabinets with hidden secrets and files stuffed with information that should have been handed over decades ago.  In one comment to a recent SC blog, it was mentioned that one Giles Rawlinson had kept out of sight in his attic numerous files connected to the Smyth case.  At least the police eventually obtained sight of them, unlike the files that were burnt in the Chichester deanery garden.  If there is one word to describe the misuse of power by the ReNew constituency, it is this continuing use of secrecy.  Unlike other forms of evil, secrecy does not involve action or deliberate choice.  It just requires that an institution sits back and does nothing, smug in the complacency of its power.  It is that smugness and passivity that is now being challenged and will continue to be challenged.  Apart from fending off the questions being asked by survivors, official Inquiries, the police and the general public, the church and the constituent bodies within it now have to negotiate the new threat, the pandemic and its aftermath.  If there is one good thing that may come out of the present crisis it is the thought that secrecy and suppressing of information may be less tolerated within our church life as it negotiates its place within the post-pandemic society.   Secrecy, as a tool of power, has played a toxic role in the Church of England for too long. It is time for its expulsion from the life of the institution.

A fantasy examination question for an A level student fifty years from now, might read as follows.  ‘Competent leadership on the part of generals and politicians was a crucial element in enabling the Allied nations to obtain victory over Fascism in WW2.  Conversely, poor political leadership helped to exacerbate the International Pandemic of the 2020s.  Discuss.’   I realise that I have been thinking a lot about the failures and successes of leadership over recent weeks.  We now have the commemorations of the Second World War to remind us how another world-wide crisis was dealt with by our political leaders in the past.   I realised that it might be helpful to set out more what I believe this mysterious quality of leadership to consist of.  I am sure that somewhere among the 600 blog posts there are to be found some other reflections on the topic, but a discussion on leadership at this moment in history is going to be different from anything that has been offered before. 

 As I begin my random thoughts on leadership, I am comforted by the fact that, although there is a vast literature on the topic, there is much disagreement among the experts as to precisely what leadership is.   This allows someone like me, possessing no specialist expertise, to reflect on the topic, basing my remarks purely on life experience.   We all have had to cope with leaders and others with authority over us.  Maybe we have been in a situation where other people have looked to us to provide leadership.  What will be true is that everyone will have encountered the phenomenon of leadership and either benefited from it or suffered pain because it was exercised with ineptitude. 

This post will try to focus on the positive aspects of leadership.  Examples of bad practice no doubt will emerge as we explore the leadership that can be inspiring, helpful and transformative.  We routinely think of leadership as a corporate matter, with a leader having authority over groups of people.  We need, I believe, to start in a different place.  Leadership begins in the human family.  In a traditional family where there are two parents, one parent will typically take on the main nurturing protective role of a child.  This will normally be the mother in a heterosexual partnership. But there is a further parenting and leadership role to be performed.  That is the task of gradually introducing the child to the wider world, teaching him/her social skills and the ability to care for and protect him/herself and generally function within what will be the adult sphere.  Child rearing will have both these aspects, nurture and challenge.  Typically, a father will shoulder a significant part of this second area of responsibility.  Teaching/leading a child to operate outside the safety of the home is a gradual process lasting a considerable number of years.   Later on in life, many of us will seek out other individuals who will continue certain aspects of this parenting role.  Their role in our lives is often described as being a mentor.   Such a individual helps us by, for example, reflecting with us on difficult situations we face.  He/she may offer assessments of future challenges that we are considering.  A typical scenario would be a job application.  The mentor may well help us clarify the positives and the negatives of a post and whether we are suitable to take up the challenges involved in it. 

The parent/mentor model embodies several of the qualities of a good church or political leader.   Such a figure will want to be a guide, an encourager and one who can see the way ahead with a degree of clarity.    Above all, a leader is going to be a person who only wants good for those in his/her charge.  Obviously, when someone has large numbers of people to care for, they cannot know everyone personally.  They can, however, be expected to ‘have their ear to the ground’ to pick up the dominant feelings and aspirations of their group.  Thus, when decisions are made by a leader which affect every member of a group or a nation, the individuals within it may reasonably expect to feel included somewhere in that decision.  When, on the other hand, leaders make decisions that benefit either only themselves or their small band of cronies, the typical person among the followers will be able to spot that self-serving action.  If, on the other hand, there has been a genuine attempt to do the very best for the majority that also will be picked up.  The key to leadership is good communication.  When men and women of power work in secret, that will always create distrust, resentment and resistance among the followers. 

One of the best descriptions of leadership I have read, links a leader to a vision for his or her group.  The leader has this vision and, through the skills of rhetoric and persuasion, draws in his followers to join him/her in sharing it.   It may or may not be a message of new prosperity and plenty.  A leader, like Churchill, was inviting followers to a tough period of ‘tears and sweat’.  The leader is the one that can successfully articulate and communicate what needs to be said in a given situation and invite the followers to prepare for it.  The important skill for any leader is the correct interpretation of the times and the ability to know what will be acceptable to the followers in effectively responding to it.  That, of course, will demand gifts of a high order. I am unsure whether there is currently anyone on the political front or in church leadership who can, in fact, perform this role?  At the risk of repeating what I said in the last blog post, the future of the nation and the churches looks bleak at present.  From our political leaders we will need help to face up to the possibilities of shortages, increased unemployment and severe social pain.  While setting out these grim realities, it will also be important to rally people around the possibility that such pain can be borne and be the harbinger of a new sort of society and church life.  Froghole has helpfully listed several of the steps that might be taken to allow the ordinary members of society not to feel forgotten.  I noted one suggestion which involved the closing down of financial boltholes in British Overseas Territories.  If the covid-19 age has the consequence that society ends up with even greater inequality, that will be a stain on this country’s history which will never be erased.  If we are to have greater economic hardship, then everyone must accept their share.  I am not suggesting some fantasy equality for all, as this, historically, has proved unworkable as an aspiration.  Political leadership in this situation is explaining to people what is required of every member of society.   We need from our political masters some clear facts, even if they are initially extremely unpalatable.   

The leadership of the Church has, to all appearances, been paralysed by the virus.  As I articulated in the last post, there is something slight awry when church leaders gather to discuss how the church is going to pass through the present crisis but keep their deliberations secret.  When the committees of Church House and the House of Bishops play this game of secrecy, they imply that they own the church in a way that is not true of the rest of us.  If dramatic contingency plans are being made, we need to know.  If there is a hope that the show goes on as before, we also need to be told.   Leadership, good leadership should be telling us the prognosis for the future, good or bad.  Will the church not be healthier for facing up to reality and beginning to adapt to coping with its implications?   

Many people in this country have watched the television mini-series Chernobyl, even though it has not been transmitted by the main terrestrial channels.  It is a powerful drama/documentary and helps us to understand the moral bankruptcy of the Soviet system some five years before its final collapse.  The judgement of Mikhail Gorbachev, no less, was that the explosion at the plant was the ‘turning point’ that ‘opened the possibility of much greater freedom of expression, to the point that the system as we knew it could no longer continue’. 

Viewed from this perspective, the drama and the event that was portrayed in it was less about a nuclear event and more about a once mighty institution being tested by a crisis and failing, lamentably, to respond adequately.  The most telling parts of the drama are the exchanges about truth and its control during the course of the drama.  To stop the outside world knowing what had happened, phone lines were cut and Moscow rejected an immediate evacuation of the neighbouring town, Pripyat, and the surrounding area.   ‘Panic is even worse than radiation’ Boris Shcherbina, a vice-chairman of the Council of Ministers supervising the management of the crisis, declared.  As a good party functionary Shcherbina was giving voice to the paranoid communist aversion to ‘alarmism’. This was a crime in the Soviet Union and it could see its perpetrator sent to a labour camp.  It was not as though ‘truth’ did not exist within the system, but that the ruling communist system was the arbiter of which truth was allowed to prevail.  In one memorable scene, to rapturous applause, Zharkov, a veteran communist and member of the Pripyat governing council, makes a statement espousing rudimentary communist morality to local officials.  ‘No one leaves [Pripyat]. And cut the phone lines. Contain the spread of misinformation. That is how we keep the people from undermining the fruits of their own labour.’

The priority of the ‘system’ over truth and the preservation of human life has an eery parallel to the events in America today.  It has been apparent for some time that, for Donald Trump, ‘truth’ is what furthers his political future.  It has very little to do with reality or the good of the people for whom he has responsibility as President.  Lies and false claims of success help to make him feel good about himself, feeding his toxically narcissistic personality.  His desire and need to retain power is also obsessive.  He enjoys being at the pinnacle of influence, but his enjoyment of such a position is also connected to a fear that, were he to lose it, an avalanche of lawsuits for financial skullduggery and other crimes will descend on him the moment he leaves office.  For supporters, Trump’s power and confidence becomes their power.  As with cult membership they identify with their leader and share in his ‘achievements’.  They have allowed themselves to become merged in some real sense with his personality so they cannot stand apart and see anything wrong in what he says or does.  His ‘truth’ has become their truth and they cannot see the high price that they are paying to live in a distorted universe of Trump’s making.

The social situations we have described refer to very different historical settings.  But Soviet Russia and Trump’s America have something in common.  Both have provided, for some sections of the population, a system or institution that can be relied on and believed in.  In both cases what was believed in was rooted in deceit and lies but that did not matter as what was gained appeared to outdo that.  Having an institution to lean on, whether Soviet communism or Trumpian triumphalism, removes anxiety and self-doubt – for a time.  But each of them provides a reason for not thinking or taking a critical look at what is going on around.  In such a situation anxiety is banished, internal calm is restored.  It does not matter that the telephone to the world beyond is severed, as long as peace and tranquillity is preserved within the mind of the blind follower.

Trusting that an institution or a person is totally reliable so that you do not have to think things out for yourself is what small children and totalitarian followers do.   It is almost as though the ability to think through complex ideas and to have an opinion of one’s own is too hard for many people.  It is the situation that allows the instant ready to serve opinions of the Daily Mail and Fox News to flourish.   Sadly, the desire to go into a ‘not-think’ state applies to many church people.   This blog post often refers to the anti-intellectualism of right-wing fundamentalists in the States, but we are not referring to them at this point.  What we are talking about is the failure of many people to challenge institutional thinking or any voice that appears to have authority.  We may not think of ourselves as being subject to the decrees of institutions, but intellectual laziness is sadly extremely common.  When there is such mental laziness around, those who have power can get away with misusing it.  Most of the time it is not appropriate to use the word ‘abuse’ to describe what is going on.   Rather we should perhaps speak of acquiescing in an unhealthy power dynamic which is subtly undermining an individual and their capacity for individual agency.

The ‘not-think’ state that exists in churches, as individuals lean on leaders and the institution itself, is part of the reason that makes it difficult for survivors to be heard and the cause of justice generally to prevail. I am well aware that justice for abuse survivors is not the only issue that church people should be fighting for. The fact that there are other rampant injustices towards minorities of all kinds in the church is well known. Each of these deserves to have vigorous spokespeople demanding our attention.  The supporters of all these causes will probably have the same complaint. Their fellow Christians are often beset, not by wickedness, but everywhere there is a prevailing apathy, laziness and the pursuit of comfort which distracts them from a proper engagement with the issues.  These same forces of apathy, which disengage mind and feeling, allowed the Soviet system to exist for a long time.  They also allow Donald Trump to bewitch a large minority of the American people, in spite of the inanity and shallowness of his words and thoughts.  The call to lift people out of inert thinking to active engagement with the causes of our time is not meant to be biased towards a particular political party view.  It is asking people not to lean on institutions, but to engage individually with the matters of the day using their thinking, their feeling and their consciences.

On a final note we may suggest that both in the State and in the churches we are suffering from a paralysis of leadership.  Leadership in these contexts is not telling people what to do or what to think.  It is getting people to fully engage with what is going on and use all these abilities of feeling and intellect to grapple with and respond to events.  I have yet to hear clear words of leadership from the Prime Minister or our religious leaders.  I would like to see some imaginative prophetic thinking going on to suggest how the path to the future should unfold.  Things are going to be different for our nation and for the world in general.  As things stand, there will be massive costs to be paid for by future generations.   Rather than penalise only our children and grandchildren, we should be talking about the costs to our generation, those that need to be met now.  From the State I would expect to hear something about increased taxes and from the Church some straight talking about what the institution can realistically afford in the future.  Even ‘back of the envelope’ calculations suggest that there is going to be an earthquake ahead in what the church can afford to sustain in terms of its activities  The sooner that planning starts in earnest to adjust to this future, the better.  Leadership in the Church of England needs to be open.  The calamities and failures of safeguarding have been partly as the result of the church, at the leadership level, attempting to hide its crises in secret committees.  If the transition to the future, whatever that may involve, is to be a smooth one, we need to hear far more of what goes on behind closed doors.  Institutional self-protectionism is no longer appropriate.  The  institutionally dictated attitudes that have failed us in many safeguarding events need to be overcome.  We need to feel that the church authorities are truly on our side.

Three weeks back, I wrote about the financial settlement, announced by the Titus Trustees, with three Smyth survivors.  My comments about the accompanying statement, issued at the same time by Titus, were that it was less than satisfactory.  There was no real engagement with the pain of the survivors caused by Smyth either in Britain or in Zimbabwe.  If the Titus Trustees believed that the announcement was going to give them a good press, they were mistaken.  Among the observations made here on this blog, and elsewhere, was the fact that far more charitable money has been spent fending off the complainants and protecting Titus assets, than used on the actual settlements.  In short, the charity trustees seem to have been most focused on preserving their wealth.  The question about how they might most generously and charitably help victims and survivors of Smyth’s brutal activities, does not appear to have been asked.

In the last few days we have learnt of a further development in the story.  The Rev Simon Austen, the Vicar of an active conservative Anglican parish in Exeter and Chair of the Trustees running the Iwerne camps, has relinquished the post of Chair and Trustee.  This second piece of news is worthy of comment.  Of course, the explanation for this resignation may be completely mundane.  The demands of a busy parish may indeed mean that he does not have the time to give to the trustee work.   But the history of Iwerne/Titus is such that it is hard not to speculate that an event like this has a deeper significance. The original Titus announcement about the survivor settlements was issued by press release on a Friday evening in Passion Week.  We might wonder whether there was a hope that it would be overlooked.  This second piece of information about Simon’s resignation was not the subject of any press announcement at all.  His name as a Trustee simply disappeared from the website and on the record in Companies House it was stated that the this resignation had taken place on the 9^th April, the day before Good Friday.  Once again there seems to be an attempt to keep this news under the radar.  A spokesman for St Leonard’s Church, Exeter stated that Simon had come to the end of an agreed period of office.

The Titus Trust are entering a very difficult period in their history.  Apart from the announcement of the financial settlement a week previously, the Trustees are now apparently cooperating more freely with Keith Makin’s inquiry into the Smyth affair.  Indeed, it is hard for them to refuse to do so now, since their excuse has always been the existence of a law suit now concluded.  We still, however, have yet to witness any real expressions of enthusiasm for sharing information from this quarter.  The one thing that the ReNew/REFORM/Iwerne constituency have proved to be excellent at is the keeping of secrets.

Why did Simon Austen really resign?  We have no definite means of knowing anything beyond the official reason given.  It cannot be a popular decision for him to have taken as far the Trust is concerned.  It is hard to see who else is going to want to willingly occupy the position of chair of an organisation, now so much under scrutiny.  Apart from Keith Makin’s enquiry, there is also a promised cultural review to be conducted by the trustees themselves.  Unless the trustees have already determined what conclusions are going to be revealed ahead of time, these enquiries are likely to be less than comfortable for all concerned.  The networks that intersect with Titus and Iwerne Trust before it, are crammed full of secrets and no one in that group will have any interest in revealing them.  The story of Smyth’s activities and his downfall have been shown to implicate others who knew but did nothing.

The Smyth affair has never been just about one person’s evil proclivities.  As I have claimed several times it is a story of institutional secrets, conspiracy to cover-up, tribal loyalties and corrupt behaviour by a range of people.  Simon’s resignation may be one person attempting to distance himself from a leaky wooden boat which is rat-infested and taking on water.  But from what I can gather, Simon, like all the members of the network, must know murky things about the past.  This means that he cannot so easily walk away from the secret-infested culture of Iwerne/Titus of the past thirty years. 

In my interest in power dynamics and my observations of the ReNew network, I have noticed that everyone taking a position of responsibility within the network has been promoted through a system of patronage.  Like an old-fashioned mediaeval kingdom, the positions of power and influence are handed out to those who have been ‘approved’ by the ReNew leadership.   This finds its centre in the main conservative parishes like St Helen’s in London.  Past and present (and future?) chairs of Titus have all apparently received the stamp of approval from this leadership core within this powerful conservative wing of the Church of England.  The power they possess consists of three strands.  They have massive wealth which allows them to be financially independent of the Church authorities at the centre.  At the same time the parishes in the constituency can threaten to withhold money from dioceses.  They know that if that threat were ever carried out, it could cripple the work of an entire diocese.  Secondly, they have the power of patronage, as has been discussed.  Thirdly they have the power of being able to control information through strong tribal loyalties.  Smyth’s and Fletcher’s misbehaviours were supressed for over thirty years.  Even now, with all the information being revealed to the press and outside enquiries, the typical member of the ReNew network remains unwilling to share information even if he/she may have been a victim.  Inquiries and investigations have still to reveal more about what happened in the past.  Those who were the victims of Smyth’s and Fletcher’s behaviour continue to suffer because the full truth has never been properly told.  The power of omerta is at work in this network and that power creates its own special flavour of evil.   Do those with knowledge of evil actions in the past, as actors, witnesses or sufferers, not realise that their silence acts as collusion for something deeply toxic?

The resignation of Simon Austen and the lack of information about the true reasons may indeed be a matter of little importance.  But, to judge by the way that the ReNew group behaves and keeps secrets which damage people, they have no right to expect to be believed by outsiders when they offer innocent explanations for the events that take place.  Withholding information, as Iwerne/ReNew have consistently done over so long a period can be seen as an act of hostile and aggressive behaviour towards the innocent.  When we finally see clear evidence of metanoia and open sharing of truth on the part of leadership of this ReNew constituency, then we will begin to believe that they are being honest with us.  Until then, we will hold on to the thought that the only thing that seems really to interest them is their influence over others and their maintenance of their power within the church.   The incubation of evils like that of Smyth and Fletcher has had the long-term effect of making the whole network appear toxic to the rest of the church.  Can we really be blamed for that attitude, even if it is not completely fair?

Over the past few days, I have found myself reflecting further on the mechanics of safeguarding as practised by the Church of England.  I noted that so-called core groups possess a potential conflict of purpose.  What are they really supposed to accomplish?   How do they operate within what we have suggested is a somewhat dysfunctional safeguarding industry within the church?

When we try to find out what is the official scope and function of these groups, we may look at an official statement set out in a House of Bishops document from 2017.  This is entitled Practice Guidance: Responding to, assessing and managing safeguarding concerns or allegations against church officers.  Some key words from this document are as follows.  ‘The purpose of the core group is to oversee and manage the response to a safeguarding concern or allegation …….ensuring that the rights of the victim/survivor and the respondent to a fair and thorough investigation can be preserved.’  The task of responsibility towards a victim is also expressed in the words: ‘Ensuring how the victim/survivor and/or their family can best be supported by advising the DSA’.  This understanding of the working of core groups is very close to the model adopted in social work practice.  In that context, as it relates to the care of a child or vulnerable adult, a team of individuals, each with a professional interest in the case, would come together to discuss it.  In many cases, when appropriate, the parent of the child or even the child him/herself would be invited to take part in the process.  This incorporation of a practice from the world of social care is to be expected as most of the first generation of safeguarding officers on the national team in 2015 seem to have shared this professional background.

Some serious flaws in the functioning of the core groups within the church seem to have begun early on.  A first problem was the fact that these groups were convened and met in secret.  Gilo has told me that, although there was a church core group convened to discuss his particular case, he was told nothing about it for 18 months.  Even when he heard about it, he was not informed of the identity of the members.  I am also told by a John Smyth/Iwerne survivor that the NST (National Safeguarding Team) informed him that the John Smyth core group was disbanded on his death. In addition, the survivor was never allowed to know who had been in that core group. This again shows a complete lack of interest in the well-being and support of the Smyth survivors. It is almost as if a corporate sigh of relief was uttered now that the perpetrator was off the scene. One of the issues about the Smyth scandal is the way the episode implicates senior churchmen within the Anglican establishment. Any excuse to shut down investigations and discussion would no doubt have been welcome by those who had been close to Smyth in the past. The speed of closure illustrates clearly the core group’s preoccupation with perpetrators and the damage they could have caused to the wider church. Support of survivors does not seem to appear anywhere on their agenda.

One professional outsider who was allowed to attend a core group meeting was Ian Elliott, the author of the Elliott report.  His reflections on what he observed were shared with the IICSA hearing last July.  His testimony focused on the way that the core meeting model that he was familiar with in his professional life, sharply diverged with the way the meeting was conducted in the church setting.  He testified:  ‘I was initially expecting that the core group meeting would be similar to a case conference model, which I would be familiar with, but essentially would be a meeting whereby all those who were providing care and support would come together… I did not think that that was happening at that meeting.  I felt that it was very much a business meeting that it didn’t have a focus specifically on the case and the welfare of A4.  I was quite shocked by that.  A4 was not in attendance; no one was there as such representing him…… I spent some time talking at length to members of NST to establish exactly what was the purpose of a core group meeting, as such.‘

Ian was then asked by a member of the IICSA panel for the answer that he had received from this questioning.  Ian’s answer was telling and chimes in with the impression given to survivors who have asked the same questions of others involved in safeguarding work.  ‘It was essentially a business meeting, but the focus, I think, was more to do with the protection of the institution, the protection of the church as opposed to the care and welfare of A4.‘

These words in many ways sum up what seems to have happened everywhere with core groups since the Church of England first adopted them as part of its practice.  Instead of psychologists, psychotherapists and others on the group who would be anxious to promote the pastoral needs of victims, we find the safeguarding professionals supported by lawyers, communications experts and representatives of insurance companies.  The cynic in me would ask: Is it any surprise that core groups have been conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy and concealment, when there is so much that needs to be hidden from sight?  Ian commented further in a interview on the Radio 4 Sunday programme.   ‘In my experience, affording the subject of the meeting, the survivor, the opportunity to contribute to it, makes for much better outcomes.  … (The meeting) is rooted in attitudes to survivors which are totally misguided, misplaced and unacceptable.‘ Phil Johnson, the chair of MACSAS, the survivors’ group and also interviewed on the same programme, added his assessment:  ‘These core groups demonstrate the extent to which the church is more interested in financial considerations  than the well-being and care for victims.‘

After reading Ian Elliot’s professional assessment of what was going on at the core group he attended, we find ourselves understanding the House of Bishops’ guidance in a different way.  They spoke about ‘managing the response to a safeguarding concern or allegation’.  It would appear that ‘management’ in this context is in fact about settlements, protecting the church’s reputation and generally avoiding bad publicity as far as possible.  The second part of the management process, ‘ensuring how the victim/survivor and/or their family can best be supported’ seems to be absent.  Although we would expect the church to have a system for protecting its reputation, it is bizarre that anyone should conceive of doing such protection while at the same time pretending to be caring about the interests of survivors.   These two aims, as I and others have pointed out before, are extremely hard to fulfil at the same time.   In the end, to judge by the individuals chosen to be members of the core groups that we know about, the church has decided to lean firmly in the direction of ‘managing’ the interests of the institution rather the care of survivors.   Secrecy and indeed confusion about what are the true purposes of safeguarding generally are still a feature of much of what goes on in this world.  Sometimes we hear the expression ‘lessons learned’ in connection with safeguarding reviews that are conducted from time to time.  I cannot be the only individual who wonders whether the church is really learning lessons.  Recently a Dean of a major cathedral was suspended and then re-instated over a safeguarding issue.  The details of the case have never been published or shared with the wider public.  How can anyone learn anything if important safeguarding information is not shared?

This brief look at the issue of core groups in the church has a final footnote which leaves us feeling that things are not going to change soon.  Back in 2012/13 the publicity machine of the Church of England received a shake-up when the full horror of past abuse cases in the church was beginning to become apparent.  Around that time, a new appointee to the post of Director of Communications for the Archbishop’s Council was a former communications officer/priest/lawyer, one Arun Arora.  Although the appointment attracted some negative publicity, there was one positive thing to give us hope.  Those looking for a new culture of openness in the C/E noted that Arora had stated, in an article, his support for the principle of institutions/professions not being allowed to ‘mark their homework’.  He had written: ‘the rights of any profession to both represent and regulate its members are outmoded, outdated and outweighed by the need for consumer protection and confidence’.  And yet, disappointingly, during Arora’s time working for the church, nothing of a new way of dealing with past murkiness appeared.  The culture of secrecy, suppression of scandal and injustices towards survivors has continued.  In this process, in spite of the affirmations of the House of Bishops, the core groups, that have come into being, have become part of the problem.  Affirming justice and revealing truth about the past are honourable aims but the church is slow and unwilling to make these its priorities.  The critique by Ian Elliott and others over the work of core groups has never been answered.  The C/E has to be more open in its dealings with survivors as well as its own past.  The core groups, which have been evolving since around 2015, have, apparently, become a method to contain scandal rather than one for promoting the cause of truth and justice.  Do the rest of us have to regard them as weapons of defence for the church rather than instruments of justice and compassion for those who have suffered?  

By Janet Fife

The summer of 1972 stands out in my memory.  I’d finished my first year of college, during which my family moved from Florida to California where my father pastored a church. That summer I volunteered as work crew at a Christian wilderness camp on Catalina Island, nearly 30 miles off the southern California coast. The island is mountainous desert with feral goats, pigs, and bison; Campus by the Sea was sited in a private cove accessible only by boat. There was no electricity and very little running water. The main dining and lecture hall had open sides, and most of the cabins had only partial walls. We spent the whole halcyon summer out of doors or in the sea.

My job for the summer was to run the laundry. I had an ancient twin-tub machine powered by a lawnmower engine bolted to a frame. I had to make the most of the limited water supply, cope with the lawnmower engine, and train a series of short-term helpers to keep their fingers out of the wringer. It was hard work but I enjoyed it. Time off was spent hiking, swimming, snorkelling or, on rare occasions a trip into Avalon (the only real town) by boat when my day off coincided with a trip for supplies.

But perhaps the most special feature of that summer was that most of the work crew were in our teens or early twenties; and many of us had been swept up in the Jesus Movement, a genuine religious revival among young people. It’s impossible to recapture or to describe what it’s like to be part of such a revival. “Bliss it was in that dawn to be alive/But to be young was very heaven.” In the worship part of our daily team meetings we almost seemed to be touching heaven at times.

There was something missing, though, and as the summer wore on we felt its lack more and more keenly:  we had no access to Holy Communion. None of the groups visiting the camp brought a minister with them and we couldn’t get to church in Avalon. Summer was near its end when, finally, a group arrived at camp with their pastor. By then I’d been without Communion for 3 months, and most of the others had too.  There was anticipation when we learned that this group planned to hold a Communion service on their last evening with us. We asked if we could join them – and were refused. It was a hurt and disconsolate group who gathered for our team meeting.

I don’t remember the details of our discussion, but I do remember the outcome. We decided to hold our own Communion service that evening, led by Rob ‘Otto’ Kroeger (son of theologian Catherine Clark Kroeger) and myself. We gathered in a crew cabin, huddled on bunk beds. One of the cooks brought bread and cooking wine from the kitchen. We read the Bible, prayed together, and aired some of the tensions which inevitably arise when a group of people live and work in close quarters (‘Bill thinks Christians should have all things in common, except his wetsuit and his 12-string guitar’…). We forgave each other. And then Otto and I celebrated Holy Communion, as I had seen my father do it.

It was one of the most moving and deeply meaningful Communion services I have ever experienced. When it had finished we didn’t want to separate, so we adjourned to an empty cabin with a small kitchen and had a love feast of abalone rolls.

Strangely, God didn’t seem to mind that neither Otto nor I was ordained; that I was a girl; or that I hadn’t yet even been baptized (my baptism was scheduled for the autumn). God’s presence was palpable, despite all these drawbacks. And it made a difference to the way we related to each other for the rest of the summer.

I have recalled this episode when reading some contributions to the ongoing debate about ‘virtual’ Holy Communion. Some tell us that if we take bread and wine while watching a live streamed Eucharist, we are not really taking Communion. Others would discourage us from taking bread and wine at all. This baffles me. The Communion brought to me at home, where I have not taken part in the service with others, and not heard or seen the consecrating prayer, is held to be the real thing. So when I have joined an online service, sung the hymns, prayed with others, followed the eucharistic prayer  – why would that not be a valid communion? Do we believe that the God who created multiple solar systems is limited by space and time?

I have felt the same bafflement when hearing people say that they are ‘not in communion with’ certain other Christians. A Roman Catholic nun colleague once said to me that, ‘When we take Holy Communion we’re in communion with the Pope and all the saints, and when you take communion you aren’t.’ There are Anglicans who don’t recognise the Communion services of other denominations as valid. Within the Church of England there are diocesan clergy conferences and Maundy Thursday Eucharists where there are separate celebrations for those who recognise female priests and those who don’t. But if I am in communion with Christ, and you are in communion with Christ, how can we not be in communion with each other? ‘Though we are many, we are one body, because we all share in one bread.’ The bread is not the priest’s wafer but Christ, the bread of life. Every Christian is part of that body, even if their church has no eucharist at all. They share in Christ in other ways.

Each Christian denomination has the right to order itself in the ways it thinks best, and those who belong to it should submit to that discipline. That is right and proper, for ‘all things should be done decently and in order’. In exceptional circumstances, however, the usual order may need to be changed. And we should at all times recognise that the Holy Spirit is not bound by the rules of our particular Church.

The Bible gives us little reason to think that celebrations of the Eucharist ought to be limited to a priestly caste; the Passover is observed in Jewish homes. It’s likely that many of the restrictions which have long hedged round Anglican and Roman Catholic Eucharists arose from the Roman Empire’s need to control its people once Christianity became the empire’s recognised religion. In Yorkshire we have an expression that a particularly loving and generous person ‘has a heart as big as a dinner plate’. God’s heart is so big the whole cosmos cannot contain it. In these difficult times, the Eternal Love will not leave his people unfed and uncomforted.

 In the last piece, I wrote about the way our capacity for independent thinking is often compromised by external influences.  We may experience these at any moment of our lives.  This was an idea that I lifted from my reading some twenty years ago of a book, Influence, Science and Practice by Robert Cialdini.  The book was first published in 1984 and has proved to be a classic of social psychology.  It has been very influential among religious students and sales experts alike.  Those who study cults of various kinds also quote it frequently.  The ideas contained within it have stood the test of time well.  Cialdini’s basic idea can be stated very simply.  To persuade or influence another person, you need to apply one or more of six principles of social influence.  These are, using merely the headings, reciprocity, commitment and consistency, social proof, authority, liking and scarcity.  I do not have the space to explore what each of these principles involves, but to give a flavour of how they work, I can take one topical example.  People, in a pandemic like the current one, are easily persuaded by the rumour that there is a scarcity of loo rolls in the shops.  This rumour then creates its own momentum and the shelves are quickly stripped bare of this commodity.   The sight of empty shelves brings into operation a second principle of influence, social proof.  Everyone else is doing it, so we continue to be convinced that we need to go on hoarding.   In spite of there never having been a real shortage, these two examples of social influence at work have resulted in irrational behaviour (and a shortage of a commodity!) by large numbers of people.

Cialdini’s ideas on influence can be applied in many different situations and contexts.  People want to be liked, to be consistent etc., but we can easily imagine situations where fitting in with others in accordance with one or other of Cialdini’s principles will be competing with ordinary rational judgement.  I have noticed that such a strong attack on our individual decision making may happen when we join a committee.  Most of the time committee consensus-making is a thoroughly normal and healthy process.  We need individuals within the group to shift their opinions so that joint decisions can be made, and agreed action taken.  There is nothing wrong with compromise most of the time and the world cannot go forward without this give and take in people’s opinions.  But the situation can arise when the majority on a committee is in fact wrong.  What happens when a person on a committee, with expert knowledge or access to correct information, is overruled by a majority?  Some of Cialdini’s principles of influence operate extremely powerfully in a committee situation.  The expert, the person who knows what he/she is talking about, can easily be crushed by the weight of contrary opinion, even when it is applied with a smile and the tools of charm.  He/she may continue to fight against the odds.  More likely the outnumbered ‘expert’ will quietly give up on opposition on the grounds that it is uncomfortable, even painful, to be a minority of one.  Social influence principles will normally ensure that the tough dogged independent and feisty person will in the end become the pliant subservient committee member who agrees with the majority view, even when it is wrong.

Cialdini, writing in the 1980s, does not appear to give a lot of attention to the social psychology of group committee work.  He seemed much more interested in the effect of these influences on individuals as consumers or workers.  I intend to suggest what I have noted of his ideas so far applies to some current safeguarding issues within the Church of England.  Speaking about this ‘industry’ in very general terms, I have noted and commented before on the fact that there seems at present to be a deep conflict at the heart of all church safeguarding work.  This is in the fact that the needs and interests of survivors of abuse are pulling in one direction and this is completely at odds with the desire for the Church to preserve material assets and reputation. Ian Elliot wrote about this tension back in 2016 when he said in his report: Emphasis should be placed on ensuring that financial considerations are not given a priority that conflicts with the pastoral aims of the Church when engaging with survivors of abuse.   If someone new with a firm grasp of the psychological needs of survivors and the importance of justice does join a safeguarding committee, what happens?  It is hard to see how they can survive with their original idealism and concern for survivors intact in the face of the group influence which is pulling the opposite direction.  Several of Cialdini’s principles of social influence will be brought to bear on the minority voice.  They then have the choice either to leave or to submit to the overpowering influence of the majority. 

In my conversations with Gilo, he has, on occasion, referred to this process going on.  Hitherto independent individuals have joined the safeguarding establishment of the Church of England.   They then become ‘hoovered up’ (Gilo’s expression) by the committee system at work in this process.  After a period, they reappear as compliant creatures of the established pro-institution perspective.   ‘Big Brother’, however we define that, has made them into his own.  Among the ‘victims’ of this ‘influence’ process are some high-ranking church men and women whom I hesitate to name.  The better informed of my readers can make good guesses at to their identity.  The problem, at its heart, is that safeguarding has not established firm boundaries as to what its priorities are.  Is it about the need of victims or the preservation of the assets and reputation of the established Church?  As long as this fundamental question is not answered, there will always be unresolved and unresolvable conflict within the committees in Church House and among Safeguarding committees throughout the country.  A particular problem arises for the so-called core groups which I understand are set up to deal with individual cases of abuse.  According to my information, these are set up without any representation for the survivors themselves or their representatives.  How they believe that they can resolve these cases justly without listening to the survivors’ voice is beyond me.  All too often the individuals’/survivors’ interests are in this way going to be crushed under the weight of the grinding wheel of institutional interests because that is the easier option for those with the power.

Cialdini’s work demonstrated that all individuals are susceptible to influence of different kinds, making it sometimes impossible to resist.  In the Church we have noted that the desire to preserve and protect power will sometimes be working against justice and compassion for individuals.  Typically these stronger forces seem to prevail.  My understanding of the way social pressure operates, makes me sympathetic towards those who find themselves defeated in committee work.  Their former ideals cannot resist the power of the group that is too strong for them.  What I do find puzzling is that there does not yet seem to be any conversation about ethical issues within the Church’s safeguarding enterprise.  Are there really so few of us who are suggesting that the work of the past five years of safeguarding has been severely compromised in its failure to defend survivors better?  How much longer do we have to wait before somebody at the top of the Church of England realises how self-defeating it is to try to do such incompatible things at the the same time. Until the Church is really clear about its priorities and what it really wants to do in the area of safeguarding, there will always be frustration and failure. We have, sadly, seen a great deal of these over the past five years.