“We wish to close this determination by expressing concern about the route by which this matter came to be before this tribunal. False allegations, rumours and assumptions have been blindly accepted to create a situation where significant harm has been caused. Insufficient time has been taken to question motivations and perspectives, and questions which should have been asked have not been asked until too late. There are two instances which stand out sharply in this case.

“First was the decision of the diocese to move the respondent’s abusive husband into a vacant vicarage within the parish in which she was working.

“Second is the worrying acceptance without question (my emphasis) of that husband’s allegations of an affair between the respondent and Mr Slate….

“We trust lessons will be learned and that the support that the respondent should have received from the Diocese of Coventry will now be provided to her in order to support her flourishing in her future ministry.”

Extracts from the published Determination of a Bishop’s Disciplinary Tribunal for the Diocese of Coventry, dated 22 July 2025[1], following the recent trial of a complaint made under the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 (‘the CDM’).

The words above in italics and in the blog heading form part of a Church tribunal assessment, responding to a case based on a CDM complaint against a female priest in the Diocese of Coventry.   The case against the Reverend Anne-Marie Ghosh[2] for alleged conduct unbecoming or inappropriate to the office and work of a clerk in Holy Orders” was rejected.  In delivering their judgment, the tribunal articulated firmly their criticism of the process that had led to the bringing of the formal complaint against the priest.

The story attracts attention, not only because of the vivid, even colourful, detail contained in the account set out in the Church Times, August 8th, page 3: ‘Clergy reproved over case’.  It is also a clear example of how poor and bungling process can upend a diocesan attempt to manage a case of clergy discipline.  Whatever went wrong in the Diocese of Coventry, whether it was faulty groupthink, unprofessional decision-making or misogynistic attitudes, there is clearly a considerable task to be undertaken to rebuild local trust in the way church discipline is administered.  The case often mentioned by Surviving Church, that of ‘Kenneth’, is another example where allegations have been accepted without question and where considerable pain has been caused to an individual. 

In this blog post we have been permitted to refer to Kenneth by his real name which is John Brasssington.  His case involves an accusation of the abuse of a child which he has consistently denied over five years.   There are, of course, important differences between the two cases.   In John’s case, the alleged offence involves causing harm to a child; in the other the alleged offence is that of engaging in adulterous behaviour. 

Two other features draw the two stories together.  Both of the cases belong to the Coventry Diocese, and both involve systems where individuals have proceeded with allegations based on faulty assumptions.  John has never been permitted to challenge the assumption of the core group in his diocese that he is guilty.  In the CDM case there was, fortunately for Ms Ghosh, an independent tribunal able to see through the accusations brought against her.  No such tribunal exists to examine the accusations against John, so he still lives with the cloud of being considered ‘high-risk’ and unable to play a full part in his church.   

Before we suggest further links between the Ghosh case and the Brassington case, we need to spend a little time noting some of the other details of the current story which have allowed the most appalling suffering to be experienced by the Coventry priest.  The acting archdeacon who brought the CDM complaint would seem to have been too ready to accept the allegations of guilt made by two men in the account, the ex-husband and the training incumbent.  This latter individual had a duty of care and nurture towards his curate, especially in the first two years of ministry when she was having to deal with a failing marriage.  The thought that a vicar, one presumably vetted before being given this delicate task of helping a novice priest, should behave with such apparent malevolence is a cause of dismay.  This apparent antagonism shown towards the curate on the part of the vicar suggests that he is unfit to exercise the ministry of training/supervision for a fellow priest ever again.[3]  No doubt the stories of late-night vigils outside the curate’s home trying to find direct evidence of ‘unbecoming conduct’ will have circulated among his congregation.  Such behaviour will, no doubt, have undermined the relationship of respect that normally binds priest and people together. 

One thing that is worth pointing out is the different treatment afforded to church members depending on whether they are lay or clerical.  One speculates that John might have received a proper hearing if his case had gone down a tribunal route equivalent to that under the CDM.  Such a tribunal would, hopefully, have been alert and able to see through the assumptions and faulty reasoning on display in his diocese.  The safeguarding process in the Church does not seem to know what to do with a layman who stubbornly refuses over half a decade to admit guilt for an offence that he maintains never occurred.  Over five or six years, John, supported by his friends has had to stand up to a long and debilitating demonstration of raw institutional power.

The final chapters in both the Ghosh story and that of John Brassington have yet to be written.  As regards the Ghosh case, the new Bishop of Coventry, the Rt Revd Sophie Jelly, has the difficult and challenging task of picking up a demoralised and institutionally battered priest and seeing what the future holds.  One hopes that the diocese has resources, both financial and pastoral, to deal with this situation so that Ms Ghosh can make a new start in ministry where she is surrounded by people of understanding and compassion.  As far as the Brassington case is concerned, is it too much to hope that a certain humility might yet prevail among the diocesan safeguarding authorities which will allow them to remove his ‘high risk’ status and allow him again to play a full part in church life?  Several attempts have been made to close his case down, but the attention of outside bodies, including now his MP, have kept his case alive and attracting support.  No doubt, the new Bishop will be wanting a fresh start in managing discipline matters so that her diocese can move forward in this area without unresolved past cases continuing to remind people of serious failings in this area. 

Public exposure of unprofessional behaviour by clergy and poor judgement shown by professional committees do not inspire confidence in any institution.  Is it just possible that the salacious detail of the Ghosh saga might create a new appetite for the Church in the Coventry diocese and throughout England to get things right at last in the way discipline cases are handled?  The criticisms of the Coventry handling of a falsely accused priest will not vanish quickly from peoples’ memories.  The Ghosh case and the comparable Brassington case are too serious to be forgotten.  There is, of course, the hopeful possibility that instead of cover-up, denial, and silence, the Church in Coventry and elsewhere may move forward in a way that chimes in with the zeitgeist of the moment, one which is desperately seeking transparency, honesty, and integrity.  The correct way forward will require decisive leadership, perhaps to be provided by a new Archbishop. Is it too much to hope that the cancer of weakened reputation and collapse of trust in the Church will be decisively checked by a new leader?  He or she will have to opportunity to offer spiritual and moral leadership to the nation.  It may be that in the middle of all the political and moral chaos in the country and the world, these values of clarity, honesty, and integrity may be rediscovered.  The Church may indeed rediscover its role of providing inspiration and moral guidance for our nation.

[1] The full Determination can be downloaded from the Church of England website: determination-the-revd-anne-marie-marsh-22-july-2025_0.pdf

[2] In the tribunal’s Determination the respondent priest is referred to by her married name, Anne-Marie Marsh.  The Church Times report states that she has reverted to her maiden name.

[3] The tribunal said this about his evidence at paragraph 12: “We found the evidence of Mr Gold to be troubling. It was quite apparent that he was trying to minimise the length and extent of the difficulties in his relationship with the respondent. He demonstrated a worrying willingness to believe the worst of the respondent. We were concerned that he had clearly been told about Mr Marsh’s abusive relationship with the respondent and yet he still accepted without question the allegations made against her by her husband without speaking to her about them.”

---

 

 

Before the July General Synod in York, I attended a secular wedding where the young ring bearer shyly approached the front of the gathering . To ease his nerves, the civil celebrant reverted to humour ; “ It’s alright son, you’re safe with me – I am not a real priest”.

Everyone laughed. I laughed too, even as I winced at the very low regard which ordinary people were comfortable to be publicly exhibiting at the mention of what a real priest represents in most people’s minds today.  The witty quip works in the public sphere, because, sadly, real priests are no longer trusted (c.f., Church Times, https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2020/4-december/news/uk/public-trust-in-the-clergy-has-dramatically-decreased-in-recent-years-survey-finds).

As a member of the General Synod of the CofE for ten years, I was part of a body bearing a share of responsibility for that decline; during my term of office safeguarding scandal after scandal hastened the collapse in public opinion. In helping to bring those scandals to the attention of Synod members  I had played a part in dragging the truth into the public domain thereby hastening the nation’s falling out of love with the Church. Yet these horror stories were only “the canary in the mine” signalling danger. As I lay my burden of responsibility down, here are my reflections on some of the other ongoing causes.

The late Queen was unquestionably committed to the health of the Church of England, but we now have a Supreme Governor  who seems happier to commend the merits of other faiths. He has not yet visited the elected  institution which significantly oversees  the Established Church in his name.

 His own well documented support for  one of  principal abusers – Bishop Peter Ball – is an awkwardness for him, but it might have been overcome with humility and honesty. However the institution he leads does not prioritise either in any real sense. When failure is identified the buck stops nowhere from top to bottom.

In 2018 a number of us sought to set out the multi-dimensional character of the Churches problems as viewed through the lens of those seeking justice transparency and accountability. Within the National Church. We did so in a book named Letter to a Broken Church. Looking back we were incredibly naive. We believed that if only people with knowledge experience and professional experience put the issues into the public domain  the Church Authorities, Parliament and the public would be able to see the full depth of the problems. We hoped there would then be a serious engagement and a purposeful  rectifying of the fundamental weaknesses that had facilitated both the harm and the cover-ups.

I think I first realised the complexity of our task when in the middle of addressing Synod at the Question and Answer session, I found myself stumbling across the question  “Where does the buck stop?” nobody had an answer, and neither did I, so I began looking.

With the help of colleagues I realised that amongst the “McCavities” who are “never there” to own responsibility of failures are –  the Archbishops, the House of Bishops, the Archbishops Council, the Secretary General, the Synod itself, its Standing Orders Committee, its Audit Committee, the establishments at Lambeth Palace and Church House, the Canon Law and its benefitting legal servants, the Charity Commission, and the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament.

At every turn, whether we are talking error , misjudgement, constitutional log jam, or , as some say, moral failure and/or corruption,  there is an entrenched  culture of plausible deniability. This is not the time to set out the evidence for this proposition; a simple Grok search will deliver multiple examples from this and other Blogs which have assiduously catalogued the problems in detail over the last decade. Their record of service to victims and the truth far exceeds that of the various responsible bodies of the National Church.

Some may wish to use the comment section to record which issues strike them as especially egregious.

Few invested within these structures are willing to speak openly with similar clarity, but  many would be surprised at how many – and who – is willing to privately acknowledge that this most establishment of institutions is deeply dysfunctional in the face of the moral challenges it has faced.

A number of conscientious Synod members have confided in me that they have had enough and will not seek re-election; this is a disaster. When historic memory departs the culture of dysfunctional accountability will renew its confidence and dominance to the detriment of good governance.

A few Synod voices ended up expressing what others could not or would not say; it has not always been comfortable and whilst I saw a useful role,  I remained. I no longer see that as a viable option. Synod is plainly part of the problem and not part of the solution. A few recent examples of will briefly illustrate.

In York this year following the death of Audit Committee member Clive Billeness I sought to finalise his work by raising issues he had told me he had intended to attend to immediately before he died.

Victims were getting no answers to legitimate questions about monies attributed to the; complaints against the Secretary General had disappeared without trace, credible evidence of impropriety in the presentation a document presented in legal proceedings had been detected by Clive in the exercise of his professional skills and his warnings were being ignored. The report f the Audit Committee rested on the authority of one member of Archbishops’ Council ( The body being audited) and a single elected member; he reported that the independent members had resigned but  explanation was offered as to why and most extraordinary of all, he was flippantly incurious.

A “following motion” to ask that when brought up to strength the audit committee should revisit Clive’s concerns and report; although unusual. This it was in order having been approved through the legal office – very helpfully.

Yet again, the issue was timetabled late in the evening and again a member of the Standing Order Committee preferred to play what we simple Child Protection lawyers used to call “silly buggers”   “Next business” was called before anyone had an opportunity to explain the merits of the case.  The vote was taken without the serious merits of the case being heard.

Although I have already decided I would be resigning, this confirmed the wisdom of my decision. I am convinced that Synod is not a place where serious reform has any prospect of being  initiated from the grass roots, and much of the superstructure of power is as complicit in the injustices as our victims are telling us.

One small additional anecdote; Clive was so concerned at the rational inexplicability of  some attitudes and outcomes, that he had begun to seriously consider the influence of Freemasonry. He had acquired the forty year old report to Synod which had overwhelmingly accepted and expressed concerns at its influence. Freemasonry has traditionally had strength within the cultures of the Law, the Civil Service, some parts of the Church  and the police (from whom many safeguarding advisors are drawn – all of which are “in the mix” in the eyes of reformers like myself.

I asked a Synod question on what happened to the report – and the response from the Bishop of Europe was not dismissive but he lightly confessed that he had had trouble locating it – which raised a few smiles. Suffice it to say – and without breaking confidences –  I was surprised at who sought me out to confess that they too shared Clive and my concerns. I hope somebody picks up the baton. But I doubt this will happen. Freemasonry is not something that those running the agenda of General Synod really want discussed. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

More generally, we often hear that “Synod is over managed” – it is a common internal complaint. “The same people get called to speak”; “ I never get called in debate”; at Synod Q&As, questions are evaded – “they treat us like fools as if we don’t notice” etc.

So 18 months ago, I and a few others called a meeting of the House of Laity to offer everyone and anyone a chance to set out their grievances and above all to listen. There was no mono directional motion. It was timetabled for late in the  evening and many absented themselves. After one dissenting voice was called and declared “ We can discuss this down the pub” a canny member of the Standing Order Committee moved “next business” it was carried so the debate ended. No supportive voice from the floor got a word in. There was frustration and anger at the game playing on display.

Did we all “go down the pub”? Did we discuss it outside of our circle of friends: did we hear from those outside our “tribe”. The initiative was killed off by shallow naivety and gamesmanship from the establishment.

As for myself , now  that I have time on my hands I am free to indulge a separate passion – to learn to play guitar in the “gypsy jazz” style of Django Reinhardt – an equally challenging task to reforming the CofE.

I am however encouraged by a superb mentor who not only can hold his own with the world’s greatest players, but is acknowledged to be  one of the finest teachers in the genre. It is refreshing to work with those who know what they are doing.

As he unpacks the mysteries of  crafting a limitless flow of complex innovative improvisations, he breaks his approach down into small  steps and principles – the motif, the minor 6th arpeggio, the “quotation” etc . His zen like mantra is always “This is simple – but difficult”.

The Established Church is utterly in love with its “special” status; outsiders disturbing its sustaining of complexity are to be resisted by all means possible. It will not change easily. I have come to realise that the remedy is indeed “simple- but difficult”

I confess that I have become  a late convert to the view that putting this right will only begin with the root  and branch reform that would follow disestablishment of the Church of England. Nothing less will suffice. Only that end will, finally, place the Church of England under the same laws that govern every other person and institution.

Disestablishment will stop the Church of England being “a law unto itself”, marking its own homework on safeguarding, perpetrating discrimination, abusing HR, ignoring employment law, and otherwise “straining the gnat whilst swallowing the camel” (Mt.23: 24). That day cannot come quickly enough.

by Martin Sewell

At the York Synod I indicated that I would be tendering my resignation from the General Synod and I now confirm that, having, fulfilled promises to individuals to deliver whilst in post, I have now felt able to make good on that promise.

In this piece I shall set out my principled reason; in a second post I shall explain why I felt remaining was not a good use of my time. The culture of Synod is broken and I see no way forward during my term of influence. 

There is a year left on my term of office, and I could have let it quietly expire, but decided it was better to go early for a number of reasons. Some might be interested in them so here is a brief outline,

First, when re-elected I had indicated that I would not be seeking any further term, so my time for departure was already fixed. As matters have developed I became convinced the I could achieve none of my purposes by remaining and so it was time to go. 

When I first secured election I had stood on a platform to promote “transparency and accountability”; I disapproved of candidates who did not set out in their election addresses precisely what they stood for, often running under coded phrases instead of being honest. 

I had recently read Douglas Carswell’s excellent book “ The Death of Politics and the birth of I-Democracy” in which he had won approval across the political spectrum for identifying how “ the Internet would change everything”. I saw how this would impact the Church and its governance and wanted the CofE to be readied for the culture of disclosures that was plainly about to impact the Establishment in its multiple forms.

Having recently recently retired as a Child Protection lawyer I added – almost as a throw away line- that my experience in Safeguarding might come in handy, and so it transpired.

When I entered office I was followed  by a number of  “headline cases”on Safeguarding  in which I became involved – Bishop Bell, Matt Ineson, the Iwerne Camps/Smyth scandal events in the Oxford Diocese and several others of importance; it is not immodest to say that together with my colleague David Lamming, we became the voices of victims of injustice within the Synod itself; other voices were making equally important contributions outside of Synod. They were turbulent times., yet we were met with obstruction and obfuscation of those who cannot see that the times were changing  

Amongst the advocates for change there was then a simple unity of vision. The Church was unjust to complainants and respondents alike, it was complacent arrogant dismissive and frequently obstructive. Even when their leaders did “get it” Synod often did not – many still do not.

Yet determination and public opinion did achieve some purpose and  those abused by the Church  adapted to the new environment in a variety of ways and I make no criticism of them for doing so. 

Some have walked away; some have received a measure of satisfaction for their grievances; others have resolved to abandon trying to work with the Church and to concentrate on Parliamentary lobbying. Others are waiting on the sidelines to see which of these disparate strategies offers them the best way forward. There is similar variety in determining how one defines “independence” in future Safeguarding structures.

Be that as it may, and wholly respecting each perspective, I came to recognise that whereas once I could legitimately claim to speak 

“for survivors” ( who at one time were united in the singular purpose of seeking justice) this was increasing becoming less so. It was not for me to adjudicate such differences of approach or lend such credibility as I possessed within the Synod Chamber to one view or the other. 

I have, over nearly ten years said what I thought on Safeguarding matters: collectively the Synod knows my views and if  they have not taken my points already, there is little more I could say to improve on that.

With the passing of the Redress Scheme and the kicking into the long grass of the reform of Safeguarding oversight, there seemed to be nothing of consequence likely to be decided in the remaining months of this quinquennial. It was time to go.

I should offer sincere thanks to Synod colleagues who offered me personal support and encouragement; they know who they are, and they do not know how important they were in sustaining me in the toughest of times.

My decision does not mean that I shall cease supporting the reform project, it is simply that I need not do so from within the  institution. I shall expand upon those additional reasons for walking away in a separate post. 

There are a number of words in the English language which need always to have other qualifying words to help us understand how they are being used. One word which illustrates this point is the word gratification.  On its own we do not know if the word is being used to describe something good or bad.  The addict seeks gratification by indulging in his/her drug of choice, whether it be alcohol, heroin or food.   There are various examples we can think of when we use the word in proximity to this notion of desperate craving or addiction.  These forms of behaviour, involving an intense need to satisfy an overwhelming physical/emotional desire, lead to a temporary relief or gratification of physical urges.  The use of the word gratification in this context will normally indicate a level of disapproval on the part of the speaker.  The same speaker may well add other words, like ‘desperate’ or ‘out of control’ to indicate further their sense of powerlessness or dismay at the plight of the addict.

The fact that gratification is a word that is often used in a negative context should not blind us to the fact that it is, when used in a positive sense, a very useful idea.  It can be used in a positive context when describing honourable activity and human flourishing.  Many of the patterns of behaviour that we want to see encouraged in our fellow humans are activated or motivated by the promise of gratification at the end of the process.  The effort of writing a book, for example, which includes physical and emotional input, seldom brings wealth or fame, but it normally offers to the author a sense of achievement and satisfaction that we describe as gratifying.  Writing books is, of course, not the only key to honourable gratification.  There is one particular experience common to the bulk of the human race, that of forming intimate relationships, which brings gratification.  Parenthood in particular leads to the reward of experiencing gratifying satisfaction.  To see one’s children ‘brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord’ is an achievement of great importance and the cause of enormous contentment and the right kind of gratification.

The many examples of human activity which lead into satisfying and lasting gratification can be added to at length, but they all have characteristics in common.  The first thing about them is that they draw out from the individual some area of skill and creativity which reveals some of the potential for full humanity with which he/she was born. What makes this skill/creativity special is the way that other people are often enriched by it.  It does not have to be special skill honed by years of practice and training.  It can simply be the readiness to offer help to a stranger.  I have now reached the time of life when young people offer me their seat on buses or trains.  I accept readily, not just because I do not want to stand on a crowded train, but also, I sense the opportunity of allowing a person the chance to perform an act of generosity is giving a blessing to the giver.  The simple human act of giving will always bring grace as well as gratification to the giver.

Gratification of the honourable kind can first be found in these two forms.  The first is through the development of our gifts and abilities whatever they may be.  Then there is the joy of forming intimate relationships, especially those which cross the generations in the institution we call family life.  The task for each of us is, in different ways, to share what we are and what we have with others so that the world is a slightly better place for our having been part of it.  All of us will want to be remembered as individuals who gave more than they took from others.  If that memory is true of us, then we have cause to feel, in old age, the gratification of a life well-lived.

So far, we have identified two ways of describing human gratification, the honourable over against the self-indulgent/selfish manifestations.  We come now to a third manifestation of gratification which, when placed on a spectrum, embraces both the good and the bad.  I am referring to the pursuit of gratification through the exercise of power.  Some individuals expend enormous energy chasing after the gratification that seems to be given to those who are famous and influential or who simply have the levers of control over other people.  Power over other people is sometimes mixed up with other things, like wealth or emotional control.  This possession of power is not inherently corrupting or selfish, but it very quickly can become something toxic if the person exercising it is also subject to some existing personal compulsion.  This may result in bullying or dominating behaviour, perhaps compensating for some traumatic event from childhood.  Exercising power in a just compassionate fashion may also be, at a different point along our imaginary spectrum, a way of making life better for others.  A medical worker or a teacher has to assert authority and exercise power as part of their work.  Their training and professional skills should protect them from any personal aggrandisement or need to dominate.  Gratification is still to be found in this responsible expression of power.  The satisfaction and gratification created by doing any task well is owed to such professionals.  By contrast the selfish use of power over others seems to promise an instant gratification for the bullying individual, but such behaviour clearly demonstrates a distorted approach to relationships.   Sadly, many people only understand power in relationships in terms of aggression and coercion.  Somewhere along the line they have lost touch with the healthy longing to give to others rather than to take.  We could all speculate why some individuals tip over into the realm of seeking gratification through angry attempts at control rather than giving.  Whatever answers we come up with, we could probably agree on one thing.  In all institutions and settings where some exercise power over others, there will be occasional clear examples of bullying.  For the sake of the well-being of all, processes and procedures are needed to deal it quickly.  While a healthy institution should always be aware of the need to respond and outlaw such behaviour, the main antidote is good leadership and example from the top.

It would be good to make the claim that the Church is an institution infused with the love of God, making bullying and the exercise of power gratification among its leaders impossible or, at least, unusual.  Sadly, power games and the pursuit of what we call toxic gratification are extremely common.  The Church does not help itself through its apparent unwillingness to be sensitive to the ways that human beings can so easily lapse into patterns of dominance that we have learned to associate with secular organisations.  The task of identifying individuals who are trapped in their personal need to dominate others and thus destroy the proper working of the whole organisation is vital.  One person, seeking the toxic gratification of their power needs, can undermine the possibility of true communication right across a congregation.  Instead of what we long for, accepting loving fellowship, there is an atmosphere of suspicion, fear and tension.  The possibilities for each individual to grow spiritually to discover the shalom of God at work in their lives are thus much diminished.   That shalom, however one translates the word, is the true gratification that is offered by our faith.  The desire of a few among the leaders and their immediate circle for the gratification of power, influence and sometimes sexual exploitation over others is deeply destructive.  Many who attend church faithfully and regularly are thus denied the fullness of a nurturing experience.  This they might otherwise have enjoyed but for the selfishness of the few who demand their gratification ‘needs’ be fed through exploiting or ignoring the needs of others.

This blog post has been about the possibility of all members of a church enjoying the shalom/the gratification of living and enjoying the nurture of a Christian fellowship.   Alongside the possibility of living with such a great gift is the common reality, even in churches founded on the teaching of Jesus, of toxic gratification practised by leaders.  Perhaps what I am seeking from the church is far greater sensitivity among those who select and train ministers.  They must be more alert to the likelihood that some who seek leadership in the church are pursuing a path to exercise a toxic dominance over others.  There is much talk in a safeguarding context of protecting ‘vulnerable’ individuals from exploitative behaviour.  Perhaps a still more urgent task is to recognise that when leaders find their gratification in the wrong places, much harm is caused and stumbling blocks are placed to the well-being of the flock.

by Stephen Parsons

This blog post is written at a time when we are witnessing some deeply destructive divisions in the Church.  In surveying some of these dividing issues, I am certainly not the first person to notice how many of the contemporary points of profound conflict among Christians have links to issues of human psychology. The classic theological conflicts of the past – the filioque debate or the question of whether the second person of the Trinity is of ‘like substance’ to the Father or of the ‘same substance’ as the Father – were of a different order. The winning side in this latter debate was the ‘same substance’ cohort.  Their victory is written into the so-called Nicene Creed, an elaborated version of which we still use today after 1800 years.  Another debate which caused bloodshed and acrimony at the time, the Filioque controversy, has settled into an uneasy truce, with the Western Church adopting it and the Eastern Churches with the Anglicans of Scotland opting to leave out the word from their versions of the Creed.  In summary, Christians are still divided but the things which separate them now are quite different.

What are the issues that currently divide Christians, even those that belong to the same historical groupings/denominations?  If we dig into church history, we encounter many debates and divisions, such as those dividing Arminians from Calvinists.  Today we find, in some circles, lively debates centring on the attempt to create a normative statement to explain how Jesus’ death on the Cross allows his followers to obtain salvation.  Such theological debates are still important, but the topics that today are really causing the greatest passion, as well as division among Christians, seem to have less connection with purely theological matters.  My contention here is to claim that by making some church issues, like the ministry of women, of ‘first order’ status, they are given a centrality which does not belong to them.  To argue for or against the ministry of women in terms of priesthood, ministry and leadership is surely not a key matter affecting our ultimate eternal destiny.  No Christian should wish to place another Christian who had another view on women’s ministry into ‘Room 101’.  And yet the contemporary debates about women (and the LGBT divisions) seem to inherit some of the passion of the mobs that plagued the streets of Constantinople in the 6^th century, killing rivals from another theological position.  Will the Church ever be able to flourish when we anathematise each other with such passion over these second order issues? 

Perhaps I should summarise my observations about the discussions on the role of women in the Church in this way.   Those who debate in this arena on both sides seem to derive much, if not most of their energy to sustain their position from their personal psychology.  In other words, we are normally witnessing more in the way of passion than a rehearsing of the traditional theological debating points.  Over the years, I have listened to the arguments from Scripture about the need for women to accept subservience in church matters and keep silent in church.  Then there are the other stock arguments from the Orthodox and Roman traditions about the witness of 2000 years of male priesthood, as well as the evident maleness of Jesus’ original band of apostles.  All these arguments have been rehearsed countless times.  As far as the Anglican Communion is concerned, an unsatisfactory truce has been declared, and two integrities, representing both sides of the debate are allowed a place at the table of normative Anglicanism. 

My position in this debate is to side strongly with the cause of women’s ministry.  I nevertheless regret the fact that we have these deep damaging divisions fed, I believe, by the passions of human psychology rather than reason and theological debate.  I do not propose to raise further issues that surround the LGBT debate.  I merely observe that it is hard to even think about, for example, homophobia in the Church and not recognise that personal psychological issues on both sides are embedded in this debate.  Many of the issues which are brought up in discussing the place of women in Church draw on similar human passions connected with human identity.  Each side in such a debate will draw much from the individual’s personal psychological story while trying to wrap it up in the calm rational language of theological discourse.

As a supporter of the cause for women in ministry at every level, I draw attention to the way that there have been many parallel attempts to downgrade the role and status of women in the secular world.   As a school leaver who worked for a short while as a hospital porter, I found that the women I was working alongside were being paid substantially less for the same job.  The unfair treatment of women, then and now, could be summarised as an institutional misogyny.  Misogyny is a word which covers a range of attitudes towards women, some involving strong emotions of hatred for the female sex.  The word is also used to indicate a low-level irrational dislike by men for the opposite sex.  Misogyny and its associated feelings creeps into the arguments and divisions about the place of women’s ministry in the Church.  Whether we are aware of it or not, misogyny is never far away from the discussions about the role of women in church and society.  Because misogyny is a feeling it draws its energy from irrational roots, making it a poor guide to justice and clear reasoning.  Emotional energy will always be a part of any debate but a reliance on such primal energy is dangerous for the cause of truth.  We need to admit that such feelings can act as a distorting lens for any issue under debate. Identifying misogyny (and homophobia) should alert us to the probable emergence of passion and primal feeling.  These so quickly distort and destroy calm and rational process.  Arguing from a position of passion and feeling makes it likely that we have gone beyond a position of compromise or reconciliation.   The supporters of feminism and female leadership draw on their own resources of passionate argumentation.   It sometimes seems that neither side in the debate has any incentive to give way to the other, and so we are not likely to see the argument ever resolved this side of the Second Coming.  

What are the classic reasons given to explain the appearance of misogyny in contemporary society, one which feeds and encourages the stance, one seeks to deny women an honoured and full place in church ministry? It will not be a surprise to see that I neither have the space nor the expertise to answer such a mammoth question.  But amid all the material on the topic, there is one fascinating observation from the psychology literature which throws unexpected light on the male-female struggle.  I am not sure of the origin of the psychologically based observation that I am attempting here to summarise.  Books on feminism and Christianity mostly disappeared in my great book purge of recent weeks.  The argument that I want to rehearse here, which I found very compelling when I read it, starts with the insight that many men feel a strong need to control the women in their lives.  They find it difficult to accept them as equals or, worse still, stronger in some important respects.   Women seem to have access to dimensions of emotional power which most men do not have, and many men are afraid of it and jealous of that power.

The fact that the male sex is biologically able to exert physical power over the female sex is an important given in the ‘battle of the sexes’ being played out in our contemporary culture.  This potential for physical dominance is acted out in many domestic situations, and it is suggested as many as 25% male/female relationships see violence as being part of the relationship.  One factor that is often overlooked and may provide a key to understanding why men feel a need to physically dominate their female partners so commonly, comes from a universal male vulnerability.  Every boy was once a small defenceless creature, utterly dependent on a woman for food, safety and the physical touch needed for survival.  In other words, every male child was once totally dominated and dependent on a female.  Men can never escape that memory of physical enmeshment with their mother.  For many men, determined to fulfil the male role of being the one in control and a powerful creature able to dominate and exercise power over others, this is an intolerable memory. Might we suggest that violence and the mistreatment of women is a kind ‘revenge’ against the female embedded in one’s memory and who was once in total control.  This insight makes a lot of sense as it seems to explain that strange combination of fear, worship and resentment towards women that exists in many men as they fail to produce rational patterns of thought and attitude when debating the role of women in the church.  For that debate to take place properly there needs to be a far better capacity for the sexes to engage with these psychological primal issues.  I fear that many men, even in the Church, will be unwilling to make this journey to face their vulnerability in this way.

by Anon

The latest diocesan guidelines for ministry in our local church have just come though the letter box. It is exactly the kind of thing you’d expect to read. It is a document drafted with “legal support” from the diocese, and by our “safeguarding team”. My reaction to the document, as a clergyperson, was one of fear and incredulity.  The letter and document tells me that failure to comply could result in the loss of my ministry, and perhaps in criminal prosecution.

Some of the letter is very sensible, albeit lacking legal nuance. I am told that the definition of a child is “anyone under 18”. I have a small youth group that are under-18s, and am keenly aware that the age of consent is 16. The laws on the consumption of alcohol are rather grey at the best of times, and once a child reaches the age of 16 they can join the armed services, and will soon be able to vote. They can drive a car at 17, and with parental permission, marry at 16. Treating a 17-year-old as a child in any church youth group doesn’t seem very smart to me, but I understand the need of the diocese to be risk-averse.

The definition of a vulnerable adult (or protected adult) advanced by the diocese is also vague. The diocesan document says “temporary impairment” could place any adult in this category. So it will cover anyone recently bereaved, or struggling with some other serious pastoral or personal crisis. (I think to myself, the church is full of such people all the time, and all of us who minister, including me, fall into this category – surely the church is a God’s field hospital for the broken?).

My diocese says that everyone who ministers in the congregation is now required to be regulated according to the new guidance. If someone is in regular contact with children or vulnerable/protected adults in any interface that is “ministry”, this requires “authorisation” by the bishop. Ministry is defined as “anyone who has regular contact providing religious activities”. That could be overseeing the orange squash and biscuits for the children after church. If that is a regular duty, and there is a rota, then this falls within the regulatory framework, and so volunteers who are on the rota need to trained and subject to the criminal bar (DBS) checks.

The guidance acknowledges that someone stepping in to help on this rota as an emergency to fill a gap would be acceptable. But if that person is regularly helping, they need to be checked, regulated and licensed/authorised. Anyone with “regular contact” in any sphere of ministry with children or protected/vulnerable adults is now subject to such regulatory scrutiny.

The diocese tells me that this is my responsibility. It also tells me that in the church “safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility”.  All of this is presented as “new guidance”, though please note, it is not guidance, because the threats and penalties for not following it make it clear that these are mandatory stipulations.

My diocese also has some other mantras that appear, on the face of it, to be unrelated to the new safeguarding .guidance. We have been repeatedly told – I cannot remember a decade of my ministry when the bishop at the time has not said – that we are to encourage “every-member ministry” in our churches. That “all Christians have a ministry and vocation”. That the church – especially the laity – have to be “released” to discover what ministry they have. And that being part of the church is to belong “to the whole ministry of the baptised people of God”.

If this is true, then I think to myself, not unreasonably, that it would appear that everyone attending church, unless very occasionally or just very casually, needs some kind of licence to enable them to be part of a congregation. After all, if they are doing so regularly, they must have some kind of ministry and vocation. 

Anyone could find themselves ministering to a bereaved person who happens to come to church, and simply asks for prayer and consolation from the person they are sitting next to. I’d hope most of my congregation would know what to do, and could extend compassion, help, support, prayer to such a person. (But please note, the new guidelines from my diocese say that anyone sitting in the pews faced with this kind of pastoral situation should immediately find the licensed or authorised person to respond to the person in need, and absolutely not step in – so the bereaved must be left until the correctly vetted respondent is found).

Then I think of those in our congregation for whom the legislation and ‘guidance’ ostensibly protects.  Our youth group takes an evening service once a month, and it ministers powerfully to the rest of the congregation. Those who are retirees and of advanced years find the energy and exuberance of the youth-led services to be inspiring and moving, and a young person will often deliver a short talk that rouses the congregation.  Does the youth group leading the worship and the ministry like this need to be vetted by the diocesan safeguarding protocols? Or should such ministry not be allowed, as the youth are all under-18?

Every week the Sunday School children give us feedback – within the worship – on what they have learned. Many adults in the congregation can find this more inspiring and moving than the sermons. Jesus and the New Testament had some important things to say about the wisdom that comes from the (seemingly) young and foolish. I wonder if these short, regular children’s slots in worship need vetting?

And we do have some in our congregation who are, quite clearly, protected or vulnerable adults. They have a range of physical and mental disabilities, and live in either nearby sheltered accommodation or a local care home. They vary in age from young to old. They always come with their carers or are accompanied by family and friends. But they have a ministry in our congregation too. Some take a slot by being on welcoming duty, in leading our intercessions, or being on the rota for reading one of the lessons. Without fail, the rest of the congregation testify to how much this ministers to them. So I find myself asking who is offering the ministry here, and who is being ministered to? 

If I read the guidance from the diocese correctly, it operates with a prevailing presumption that he able-bodied and ‘mentally-normal’ (for want of a better phrase) are the those who need to be licensed, and those who are less able or classified as children or vulnerable are the ones to be protected. But the experience of my own church suggests that this paradigm doesn’t work. We minister to each other. 

The safeguarding guidance we have seems to have missed the quiet revolution in disability theology that has matured in power and influence over the last 25 years, and which grew out of secular developments in disability studies. The guidance also seems peculiarly ignorant of the literature in the field. I think of Nancy Eiesland, The Disabled God: Towards a Liberatory Theology of Disability (Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1994). Or of Josie Byzek’s assertion that “people have disabilities because people are human –  impairment is a natural part of the human state.” We all have vulnerabilities. That is part and parcel of what being a human is.

To begin with, disability theologians had focused on issues of accessibility of places of worship. But the same theologians would later argue that theological reflection on disability could not be limited to questions of rights and access alone. They began to question the underlying theological anthropology of Christian churches. Theologians such as John Swinton, Brian Brock and John Hull have written powerfully and persuasively in this field. Part of their argument is that the majority of theologians in history were ‘able-bodied’ and that, therefore, the experience of disability had not been taken into account in the development of doctrine.

For example, in John Hull’s case (a theologian who gradually went blind), he showed how most theologians had developed negative biblical hermeneutics on the metaphor of blindness. But that only works because the people writing the theology were sighted.  Hull developed a hermeneutic that narrated blindness in a more positive theological light. (John Hull, In the Beginning There Was Darkness: A Blind Person’s Conversations with the Bible, London, SCM Press, 2001).

The new diocesan safeguarding guidelines seem to be oblivious to these major developments in theology. And it reminds me of the puzzling ‘Q&A’ that features in Luke 10: 10:25-37.  A lawyer asks Jesus, “Who is my neighbour?”. Jesus answers the lawyer’s question with a story about a good Samaritan – a person who would have posed all kinds of ritual, tribal, religious and implied threats and risks to the victim of the story, who would have been a God-fearing Judean.

One important feature of the parable is that the Samaritan would have been perceived as posing an additional threat to the most vulnerable individual in the parable. So we could argue that in being perceived as a potential threat to the victim, the Samaritan also renders themselves vulnerable. Come to think of it, I find it hard to imagine any ministry that does not involve some risk and vulnerability on the part of those giving or receiving. So, having taken another careful look at the new diocesan guidelines on safeguarding, I have concluded the following.

First, the guidelines assume that all ministers are able-bodied and in a constant state of optimum mental stability, and thus not vulnerable persons. To me, this seems a paradoxically vulnerable and exposing position to inhabit, and a theologically elitist way of understanding ministerial roles. It is almost bound to create additional cultures of risk rooted in dangerous fantasies of impeccability. Even if such projections are rejected by the minister, others could hold the minister accountable to them, and ask the church hierarchy to weigh and judge a minister against them.

Second, our children and vulnerable adults undoubtedly have ministries, and the scriptural witness affirms that factors of age, infirmity, capacity and agency do not inhibit any person from being an agent of God’s grace.  They can plainly minister with considerable power and impact. If any person who meets this criteria has a regular slot or designated role (e.g., reading a lesson, welcoming duties, leading prayers, etc), then the diocesan guidelines on safeguarding say that these persons should be vetted, regulated and licensed.

Third, since it is hard to exempt any person attending church from processes of diocesan authorisation – the bar is set very low as “regular contact with children or protected adults in any recognised role…” – who in my congregation is exempt from this? If safeguarding covers everything, then surely it is nothing? Unless, of course, everyone attending church as part of the ecology of every-member ministry needs vetting and authorising, simply in order to fulfil their vocation as a faithful Christian.

Having read the new diocesan safeguarding guidelines, and as a minister, I can only say that I feel vulnerable and unsafe as never before. But the same guidelines make no provision for me in what has clearly become an extremely precarious role.

by Richard Scorer

As The Times reported last week, my client Matt Drapper has received a damages settlement from St Thomas Philadelphia church in Sheffield after being subjected to an exorcism to rid him of the “demonic possession” of homosexuality. Since I posted about the case many people have asked me for more information so this piece explains the factual and legal background. Stephen Parsons has written about this case previously; you can read his earlier blog here   https://survivingchurch.org/2022/09/20/when-do-forms-of-pastoral-care-become-a-safeguarding-concern/  

 Claimant’s Allegations

 At the outset of the case Matt provided the following account to me: this is a summary of what he says happened and I should state that this is not necessarily accepted by St Thomas Philadelphia. In 2013 Matt was accepted into a one-year internship programme at St Thomas. The internship was presented as a structured programme involving a mixture of training and working in the church’s publishing branch. The program was said to include education on discipleship, weekly sessions learning to listen and respond to God and mentoring to develop leadership skills. Matt declared his sexual orientation on joining the programme. He was aware that some people at St Thomas held negative views of homosexual acts but was told that the church was “on a journey” towards greater understanding. Therefore he did not think that his homosexual orientation was at odds with his involvement in St Thomas. On Matt’s account, at no point until the day before the exorcism took place was he made aware that the church or some in it equated homosexuality with demonic possession, and at no point until the exorcism was underway was he made aware that the purpose of the exorcism was to change his sexual orientation.  

After joining the internship programme he was told that like other interns he had to attend an “Encounter God Weekend”. Ahead of the weekend he was required to complete a questionnaire including highly personal questions about his childhood and any challenges he was trying to address in his adult life. The completed questionnaires were passed to  St Thomas’s ‘Prayer Ministry team’ seemingly so a bespoke prayer session could be planned. On the questionnaire Matt gave information about his struggles with understanding and accepting his sexuality within the Christian context. Although he was aware that some prayer would take place in connection with the matters identified, he had no forewarning until it happened that an exorcism would be performed upon him, or that it would be based on the belief that homosexuality arises from demonic possession. At the “Encounter God Weekend”, and the day before the exorcism, Matt and other interns were informed for the first time that certain activities or agreements formed legal contracts that allowed demons to enter the bodies of Christians, influencing thoughts and decisions, and that issues interns struggled with such as relationships, leadership, anxiety and fear were likely to be the result of demonic possession. A teaching session run by members of St Thomas’s “School of Inner Healing and Deliverance” instructed interns that “sexual impurity” allows demons to enter their bodies. Sexual impurity was presented in the context to include any sexual activity or sexual thoughts outside of marriage between a male and a female. Matt was thereby informed for the first time that as a person of homosexual orientation he had allowed a demonic influence to come into his life. He understandably felt very ashamed and afraid. Interns were also taught in this session that demons can leave the body as a rush of air and that if a person has a physical bodily reaction, negative response or feels a wish to cease the prayers, this in itself is evidence of demonic possession. Accordingly, as taught in this session, persistence with mandated prayers would be imperative even in the face of physical and emotional distress. On the next day, interns were ordered to undergo an hour of Prayer Ministry with two people who had been assigned by St Thomas’s “School of Inner Healing and Deliverance”. Matt was told that he was carrying the “spirit of victim” and had a “hereditary demon”. Matt was then instructed to use the following prayer and asked to repeat it and speak it over himself, with the “issue” inserted either being homosexuality or a word or phrase with similar meaning: “I break the power of (issue) over me. I confess my sin of (issue). I forgive those people who have spoken (issue) over me and I forgive myself for believing and entering into this belief system. With no guilt or shame, I renounce this belief system and the curse of it and I break it over my life through the blood of Jesus to redeem sin. I cancel my agreement with Satan. I forgive myself for believing this ungodly belief, renounce and break the agreement with this lie, cancel the agreement with the kingdom of darkness. Any associated demons GO in the name of Jesus with my authority”.  

Matt received no prior warning of this prayer or any opportunity to consider its impact on him. Accordingly, he had no choice but to repeat it as instructed. Matt was then told that he needed to break any agreements he had made with Hollywood, the media or other people who had caused him to enter into the ungodly lifestyle of choice of homosexuality. He was instructed to repeat the following prayer: “I forgive myself for my lifestyle. Lord forgive me. I forgive other people who have shaped this lifestyle. I cancel my agreement with the kingdom of darkness.” He felt very distressed about this wording, of which he had no forewarning; he had never “chosen” to enter into a gay lifestyle nor did he feel the media or others had led him to believe he was gay. He had no choice but to repeat the prayer. The session leader then explained she also had another prayer that would “break” homosexuality away from Matt’s life. The prayer was as follows and was written on a piece of paper, suggesting it had been used before and would be used again: “I renounce my homosexual lifestyle and the belief systems that have allowed it into my life. I break the power of homosexuality over me. I confess my sin of believing the homosexual lifestyle is acceptable for me to live. I break the curse of it over my life through the blood of Jesus to redeem sin. I cancel my agreement with Satan. I renounce and break the agreement with this lie, cancel the agreement with the kingdom of darkness. Any associated demons GO in the name of Jesus!”  

Having been ambushed with these prayers and required to say them in turn, Matt found himself experiencing an extreme psychological and physical reaction including intense pressure in his chest, tightening of his stomach and throat, and dryness in his mouth. He felt overwhelmed and in extreme physical pain. His distress was visible and very obvious. The session leader pronounced herself to be delighted with the distress exhibited and said “I can see demons coming out of you and leaving hand in hand, marching out of the window”. Matt remembers his eyes being hot and his vision was blurred. Following the exorcism he was very distressed, feeling ashamed of his thoughts, his sexual orientation, and fearful that he had been “making an agreement with demons” as he had told in the session.  

Over the days and weeks following the exorcism, Matt became deeply depressed, experiencing suicidal thoughts. He felt totally isolated, but his mentor minimised what happened as normal. He felt broken by the experience. He experienced many months of extreme distress. In September 2014 he told church leaders that he was still gay and open to dating, He was then denied entrance to a second year of leadership training, due to still being gay. He was accepted onto another leadership team at the Church, and worked mentoring students until 2016 when he was quite suddenly told he could no longer be around the students due to his position on LGBT issues. He was told that he was a dangerous influence on young adults and children because he was openly gay and the Church thought this would influence others. He was shunned and silenced. Religion had formed a strong pillar in his life up to this stage, so the inability to access it began to impact his faith very heavily. 

In 2019 Matt became aware that he had the option to make a formal complaint both to St Thomas and to the Diocese. In November 2019 he submitted a formal complaint to St Thomas’s and the Church of England Bishop of Sheffield which included an allegation that in 2014, he experienced Prayer Ministry which was an exorcism that attempted to change his sexual orientation from gay to straight. St Thomas’s investigated and responded to Matt’s complaint in December 2019 stating the allegations had not been upheld as there was “no evidence to substantiate….the complaint”. St Thomas’s position, in effect, was to deny that the ‘exorcism’ had occurred at all. In the legal claim we alleged that St Thomas’s had a longstanding practice of performing such ‘exorcisms’ and knew full well that Matt’s complaint was true, and justified, but chose to deny it in order to conceal the extent of such activity in the church. The Diocese of Sheffield were also aware of the complaint and undertook their own investigation. At the Core Group Meeting in September 2021 a decision was made to commission an independent investigation by Barnardo’s into Matt’s complaint. The independent report was published in November 2023 and all four of Matt’s complaints were upheld including the complaint that he was subjected to an exorcism which attempted to change his sexuality. Following the publication of the Barnardo’s report, St Thomas’s apologised to Matt, stating that: “With the Barnado’s review having been completed and having read the findings, I would like to apologise for what you experienced at the church in 2014 and for the way your complaint was handled at the time”.  

Legal claim 

St Thomas Philadelphia is a hybrid Baptist/Church of England Church and in respect of safeguarding and the conduct of exorcisms purports (and purported at the time) to act according to the rules and regulations of the Church of England. Church of England House of Bishops’ Guidelines for Good Practice in the Deliverance Ministry from 1975 (revised 2012) stated the following in respect of any ‘exorcism’:

1. It should be undertaken by experienced persons authorized by the Diocesan Bishop;

2. It should be done in the context of prayer and sacrament;

3. It should be done in collaboration with the resources of medicine;

4. It should be followed up by continuing pastoral care;

5. It should be done with the minimum of publicity.  

On Matt’s behalf we alleged that that neither of the individuals who carried out the ‘exorcism’ were authorised by the Bishop of Sheffield to carry it out, although they were authorised by St Thomas’s . Further,  the exorcism was not “done in collaboration with the resources of medicine”, nor was it “followed up by continuing pastoral care”. We pointed out that an exorcism conducted in breach of these guidelines carries the obvious risk of harm to the person upon whom the exorcism is performed. We alleged that the ‘exorcism’ constituted an intentional infliction of psychiatric harm, performed in the knowledge that similar ‘exorcisms’ performed by St Thomas’s Deliverance team had previously caused harm to others, and which caused personal injuries to Matt.  

When I posted about this case on social media several people complained that the law is targeting and trying to stymie religious expression. This is nonsense. The legal basis of the claim  (what lawyers call the ‘cause of action’) was the tort of intentional infliction of psychiatric injury. This tort has existed in English law since the 1897 case of Wilkinson v Downton and has been refined more recently in other cases such as  O (A Child) v Rhodes and another (2015) (in which proceedings were brought on behalf of a child (11 years old and psychologically vulnerable) to prevent the publication of a book by his father, a famous concert pianist which described his experiences of sexual abuse as a boy; the claim failed in the Supreme Court as the elements of the tort were not made out). The tort applies equally and neutrally to secular and religious settings – for example it has been used as the basis of a claim against a school where a paedophile teacher groomed a child and encouraged her to send him indecent images of herself. The tort does not ‘target’ religion; if the elements of the tort are made out liability will follow irrespective of whether the defendant is religious or secular. Of course, the right of religious organisations to practice religion and worship as they see fit is guaranteed by article 9 of the European Human Rights Convention and the UK Human Rights Act; however, the article 9 right is not absolute and can be abridged where harm is caused to others.    

In the event St Thomas’s denied liability but offered a settlement which Matt accepted. Therefore, this case is not a court ruling so it does not create a formal legal precedent.  However, to my knowledge, this is the first ever payment of damages in response to a claim for psychological harm caused by conversion or exorcism practices. It confirms that a legal route exists by which conversion practices can be challenged where psychiatric harm is caused. Arguments may arise around whether the constituent elements of the tort have been made out, and around issues of consent (where adults are concerned consent may be a complete defence to a claim in tort) . Ultimately because of the settlement these issues were not adjudicated by a court in this case, but I am sure that there will be further legal claims. I would prefer that churches abandon these abhorrent practices of their own accord, but the risk of legal liability may also encourage them to do so. Church insurers may also be more reluctant to provide insurance cover to churches that engage in harmful conversion practices.  

 Richard Scorer is Head of Abuse Law and Public Inquiries at Slater & Gordon Lawyers (UK). He acted for Matt Drapper in this case    

by Martin Sewell and Linda Billenness

Clive Billenness was an important member of the Audit Committee which oversees risks to the reputation and credibility of the CofE Archbishops Council, For some time before his untimely death he  had been deeply worried about the complete loss of independent oversight over the Council following the resignations and withdrawals of both the independent Auditors and the Committee Chair – all unexplained in the recently filed reports to Synod.

During a late-night Synod session on Sunday, members were invited to debate a motion identifying the lack of proper oversight as a governance “red flag” that had affected victim/survivors who Clive had supported. He had spoken with us of bringing a dissenting report to the Audit report which is a serious weapon in the professional Auditor’s armoury, one only to be used when s/he is profoundly worried by what they see in the exercise of their organisational constitutional duties.

Before he died, Clive had been disturbed by no fewer than four complaints brought by victim/survivors about the conduct or lack of action taken by both the Audit Committees  and Archbishops Council;  in two financial cases he had called for, and examined, all relevant correspondence and bank statement, and in one complaint of alleged forgery of a document, filed in Church legal proceedings, he had identified  and shared a likely mismatch between the explanation proffered of tracked changes in the document, and the explanation he had been officially given. 

Clive was a certified document examiner with expertise in computer cover-ups; he did not ask that his report be relied upon, but was urging that an external document examiner should review his own findings and report to the Trustees legally responsible for the Charity.

His meticulous approach and unwavering commitment to accountability were well known to those who worked alongside him. Clive’s capacity to listen with empathy to victim/survivors and pursue answers—often in the face of institutional indifference—marked him as a tenacious advocate for transparent governance. He refused to be placated by vague assurances or procedural platitudes, instead insisting that every grievance deserved proper scrutiny and concrete resolution. For Clive, the integrity of oversight was not a bureaucratic tick box exercise but a living trust owed to those the Church had harmed and a necessary part of redress

If a member of Church House staff has a grievance,  there are a host of HR policies and protocols  to guarantee good process; Clive could not see any parallel structures to ensure fair complaint handling for those who have a grievance with Archbishops Council itself – people who had already been damaged by their experiences within the Church – by both direct abuse and continuing systemic  reabuse by faulty (or worse) process. 

That lack of survivor protection was itself an unacknowledged reputational risk.

The motion, as brought, invited Synod to first recognise the problem, and proposed that when the new independent Audit members were in post, they should be required by Stnod to examine Clive’s recorded concerns and report back to Synod with an updated Audit report.

This serious motion was derailed by the procedural device to

” move to next business”; there was no ‘next business’ that evening. 

The effect is that athe motion lapsed and a  similar motion cannot be brought for the remaining life of the Synod. Potentially bad Audit news and/or governance malfeasance was successfully buried without Synod hearing, debating and evaluating the argument in the chamber. Everyone got to the bars earlier than if they had stayed to discharge their duty to “hear the complaints and take what they say seriously”.

It was a night when serious concerns were seemingly casually set aside, underscoring  why alienated survivors are right to regard rhetoric about “Accountability and Transparency” as a CofE cliche

Readers may  consider whether his kind of shenanigans denotes triviality or worse. It would take a special kind of evil to deny those hurt by this Church an opportunity to secure early independent oversight into their complaints against  Archbishops’ Council.

Martin Sewell                                                Linda Billenness 

by Ben Gibson

This is written with the assumption that you are familiar with the BBC article or radio documentary about Venessa (Vee) Pinto’s criminal abuse of Jay Hulme. Leicester Diocese put out a series of statements in response. Kat and Ben Gibson also put out a statement outlining the effect that the situation, and the way it was handled by Leicester Diocese, had on them, and the extent to which they see this as part of a much bigger problem in the Church of England nationally.

“Kat is normally very emotionally resilient and is able to function very well in the face of adversity and opposition, but this situation feels almost like it has been specifically designed on a spiritual level to target all of her vulnerabilities and do as much damage to her as possible. In our whole married life together I have never seen her under such stress, anxiety and physical and emotional pain. It has been traumatic for her.”

“…things can’t be allowed to continue on the way they have been; it’s abusive, deeply unhealthy, and not sustainable for anyone involved. I am also very concerned that [Vee] might start treating others at [our worshipping community] in similar ways to how she has treated Kat. Personally, as things are, I wouldn’t feel comfortable inviting anybody to come to [our worshipping community], as I’m worried about putting them at risk. I question whether it is safe for [Vee] to be in a position of pastoral responsibility for others. Beyond that, it is simply completely inappropriate for an abusive, bullying relationship to be at the heart of the leadership of a church project.”

These are quotes from an email I sent to Kat and Vee’s manager on 26/5/21, over a year before Vee’s license to minister was revoked. It had already been clear for a long time that Vee’s conduct was not suitable for somebody in a ministry role, but rather than treat it as a disciplinary or safeguarding matter, their manager chose to treat it as an interpersonal dispute. Kat was told that her options were either to raise a grievance against Vee, which would be a long, highly stressful process in which it would be Kat’s word against Vee’s while continuing to work closely together, to look for other work, or to persist and try to improve their working relationship.

We were supposed to be leading a worshipping community (essentially a fresh expression/church plant) with Vee, but we were actively avoiding inviting new people because we were worried that she might start treating others the same way she treated Kat. We strongly considered leaving, but felt certain of our calling to be there, and we felt it would be irresponsible to abandon the few people who were part of the community with Vee as their sole leader. We felt all we could do was try to be boundaried with Vee, try to support the people in the community, and trust that, with enough concerns raised, the Diocese would eventually take the situation seriously and intervene. If we had known how long they were going to take and how badly they were going to handle it, I suspect we would have left or spoken out publicly much earlier. We felt trapped and powerless, in a situation that was severely damaging to both of our mental health.

Can you imagine the level of cognitive dissonance we were living with at the time, attempting to continue leading a worshipping community with somebody while also repeatedly raising concerns about her abusive behaviour. On top of that, receiving undermining mixed signals from their manager in response – sometimes describing it as abusive, other times that it was just a petty interpersonal dispute and that Kat needed to grow a thicker skin. We were focused on surviving one day at a time, trying to trust that our concerns would eventually be acted on. To this day we are haunted with feelings of survivors’ guilt from this time – was there more we could have done? Did we enable some of Vee’s behaviours in some way? Should we have just left in 2020? In the Autumn of 2021 Vee asked Kat to write an endorsement for her as part of her application to be on general synod. Afraid of facing yet another barrage of verbal abuse if she didn’t do it, she agreed, and wrote a positive endorsement. Kat deeply regrets this, and apologises unreservedly to synod for this, and to anyone who perceived Vee as having more credibility as a result of her being on synod.

As time went on, the issues continued, even after their manager left to become a bishop. Several other people raised concerns about Vee with various members of staff at the Diocese. We learned that, for a long time, the Diocese treated each of these as separate issues without looking at the wider picture, so unless one standalone incident was severe and provable beyond all reasonable doubt, they seemed to feel that there was little they could do. It seems that some of the people who heard these concerns didn’t pass the information on, either because of incompetence or lack of clarity around procedure. We were later told that at one point information was deliberately withheld from a senior member of clergy, because they felt that making him aware of the wider picture would ‘muddy the waters’ as he made decisions about a specific incident involving Vee.

Kat repeatedly raised the fact that she considered the situation to pose a safeguarding risk, but she was told that the process was to be held under HR, not safeguarding, as there was no evidence that any children or people in the legal category of vulnerable adult were at risk. When Kat later spoke to the NST, they appeared to agree that this was the correct decision, and that it was a disciplinary matter not a safeguarding one. At times Kat pushed back and said that this framing appears to contradict the C of E’s own safeguarding training which emphasises the fact that everyone can be vulnerable at times, but she was told that this is ‘safeguarding with a lowercase s’. We were shocked that the training appears to be so misleading. If the Church of England acknowledges the importance of ‘lowercase s safeguarding’, why do they seemingly not have any processes in place to deal with lowercase s safeguarding risks? Why are safeguarding, CDM and HR processes mutually exclusive from one another? If your diocese had kept someone in a position of leadership in your church for 5 months, without suspension, after becoming aware of allegations of stalking, harassment and graphic death threats, with substantial evidence, and they didn’t even warn you, you would think it was a safeguarding matter too.

Throughout the past five years, we have got the impression that it is virtually impossible to sack anyone for misconduct in the Church of England. This idea was taken to ludicrous extremes when the Diocese continued to keep Vee in paid employment (on leave) for four months after her license to minister was revoked, seemingly because they were concerned about possible legal repercussions if they dismissed her. During this period of time, at one point Kat happened to see Vee in the office and had a panic attack. Eventually the Diocese reached an agreement with Vee, which included a clause that neither party could speak ill of the other, and they put out a positive public statement about her leaving. We felt that this was an extraordinary betrayal of all of Vee’s victims, and that the Diocese was trying to cover up what had happened.

At every stage of the situation, the way it was handled significantly exacerbated the distress we experienced. We felt powerless and trapped inside an institution that had totally betrayed us. It is a sense of powerlessness and being trapped that turn a challenging situation into a traumatic one. The situation felt like an ongoing nightmare that didn’t end until 2025 when Kat was made redundant. We felt that, each step of the way, the Diocese took great caution in handling the situation in terms of protecting themselves from legal risk and protecting their reputation, but in doing so they inadvertently disregarded caution for Vee’s victims. There seemed to be a complete lack of understanding or empathy for the impact that each decision would have on us, or on others like Jay.

My intention in writing all of this is not to air my grievances against Leicester Diocese, but to highlight the extent to which this situation is just a small part of the picture in a crisis of accountability facing the Church of England nationally. I believe that most of the people who were involved in handling this situation were decent, well-intentioned people, trying to make the best of completely dysfunctional systems and processes in an unbelievably broken institution – but that they have been in the institution for so long that they have come to accept it all as normal. With the exception of Vee’s horrific criminal abuse of Jay, nearly everything about this situation is completely ordinary for the Church of England. I suspect many people reading this will feel as if I’ve described a situation that they have been through themselves.

The Anglican Church appears to be completely incapable of holding people to account for their actions. This entire situation may have been avoided if Bishop Anne Dyer hadn’t written a positive reference for Vee, despite being aware of the concerns that had been raised about her behaviour during her time in the Diocese of Aberdeen. Anne Dyer herself was appointed as bishop despite concerns being raised about her bullying behaviours in her previous role. Multiple serious accusations of bullying have been raised against her since her consecration, leading to her suspension in 2022. In October 2024 the Procurator looking into the allegations decided to end disciplinary proceedings on the grounds of “public interest”, bringing the suspension to an end. The fact that Anne Dyer has been allowed to continue in her role as bishop, despite the Procurator stating “I remain of the view that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in respect of each allegation”, which included allegations of serious abuse, is like an absurdist parody of the Anglican Church. As is the fact that Vee was kept on general synod and the crown nominations commission for eight months after her license was revoked – apparently a process to remove people from synod simply doesn’t exist. I have little doubt that, had it not been for the extreme criminal behaviours against Jay, Vee would still be in ministry in the Church of England now.

We have spoken to so many people at every level of C of E structures who seem to recognise the severity of many of the problems we are raising, but feel powerless to do anything about them. So many people have been concerned and compassionate to our faces, but then failed to take adequate follow-up action to address the problems.

A common theme in the stories of survivors of abuse in the Church of England is the perception that the institution consistently prioritises protecting itself over protecting abuse victims. I suspect that the C of E has felt little incentive to improve its systems and processes around handling abuse, because they know that many of their clergy will not leave or speak out due to feeling held ransom by their sense of calling. This approach worked for them in the short term, but it is now causing severe damage to the institution’s reputation as more and more people speak out about their horrendous experiences. We hope and pray that the C of E faces its own #MeToo moment. This already seems to be happening privately, judging by the sheer number of people who have reached out to us to share their own similar experiences.

There are so many people who have been through much worse abuse than us, who have been sharing their stories and advocating for change for years. You can find many of their stories in the media, or on websites like Surviving Church and House of Survivors. To quote my email of complaint to the NST on 11/6/24:

“Please take urgent action to prevent others having to go through the suffering that Kat and I, and so many others, have been going through. If this process really does end up taking 10 to 15 years, then I sincerely hope that everybody involved will be held accountable for the harm they failed to prevent.”

The paragraph relating to Bishop Anne Dyer was updated on 10/09/2025 for greater clarity.

1981-89

• Why do you state that Mark Ruston was told in 1981? All evidence points to 1982.
• 1979 you state you are uncertain whether you spoke at Iwerne. The speaker’s list from C Camp was found, clearly showing that you did.
• Your biography states that you “were involved in the camps as an undergraduate ….businessman and theological college student in the 1980s and early 1990s” (my italics) yet you now state you did not attend in the 1980s. Which is untrue?
• Iwerne have detailed card records of all attendees going back to the 1970s. Have you ever asked for the detail of when exactly you did attend? This could be clarified very easily. Please could you do so.
• The 1983 Iwerne prayer letter included your return of address when you returned to the UK. Did you receive the prayer letter throughout your time in France? When, after 1983, did you stop receiving it?
• Your testimony regarding the conversation with Peter Sertin is very different in tone to your previous recollections? The Makin Review quotes “Not a nice man…I wouldn’t have anything to do with him if I were you”. Can you remember anything further about that conversation, accepting that is was 40 years ago? Did you make any attempt to ask Peter Sertin why he would say this?
• Did you discuss Smyth with Steve Wookey in Paris, or at any time?
• Did you recall this conversation when you subsequently, probably, funded Smyth in Africa?
• Your testimony to Makin stated that you did make donations to Smyth. You told us that it “might have been £50 or so”. In today’s money that would be over £200, which is hardly “very small sums”. Which is true?
• Why did you tell Makin that you funded Smyth if now you are uncertain?
• You reference prayer letters. Were these prayer letters direct from John Smyth? How often did he send them? He must have informed recipients of his plans, including setting up his own boy’s camps? Is that correct?
• Or were these prayer letters received from either Zambesi Trust or via Iwerne?
• You suggested they might have been through your church as a general appeal for missionary funding. What church were you attending on your return to the UK, and were they also supporting John Smyth?
• You state that you might have sent Christmas cards to “people involved in Zambezi  (sic) Ministries”. Who else were you in touch with in that period who was involved with Zambesi Ministries? Were you aware of others in your circle funding Zambesi Ministries?
• Zambesi Ministries was not set up until 1986, four years after Smyth’s abuse was uncovered. Please confirm you were in touch with him at least until 1986
• Your letter (and the Makin Review) fails to mention the dinner you had with David Fletcher on return to the UK in 1983. Please provide as much detail as you can about the conversation regarding Smyth.
• David Porter told us that you were aware Smyth had left the UK, and that it was “under a cloud”. Please confirm.
• David Porter said twice “of course he [Justin] did know something”. Did you know he had told victims that ? What did he mean ?
• Did you attend Bash’s Memorial Service at All Souls in June 1982? Was John Smyth mentioned, in any context?
• How many times did you borrow Smyth’s boat? Why is this testimony not in the Makin Review? Borrowing a boat implies a degree of proximity and friendship with John Smyth? You were 22 in 1978, yet trusted by Smyth to the extent you could take out his boat?
• Do you recall Smyth’s name being mentioned, in any context in the remainder of the 1980s ?

1990-2000

• You state that there was no briefing or mention of John Smyth in those years. That is not that remarkable eight years after he was banished.
• By 1991 you were 35 years old, and by then, two years into your training. This would have made you a fairly “senior” member of the Officer’s room, even if not one of “the inner circle”.
• Please confirm that you never again attended Iwerne camps after 1991. Would the Iwerne records confirm this?

2013. This is the key period, not adequately addressed in the Makin Review. There is no detail as to what did or did not happen, what conversations took place, what records were kept. You refer later to resigning because of the church’s failings. The criticism of Makin that you had a “personal and moral responsibility” refers to 2013. The disclosure, whether being handled by Ely or not, should have led to greater involvement and action, by dint of your knowledge of Smyth, Iwerne, Titus, David Fletcher etc etc. This is the biggest failure of the Makin Review: to answer the key question: why did the 2013 disclosure fail, and why was it covered up for another four years? I therefore have detailed questions:

• How many conversations were there with Jo Wells? Was it really limited to the initial conversation, and one subsequent when she told you the police had been informed ?
• When she stated “you probably knew him” did you tell Jo about your historic contact with Smyth? Did you mention funding his mission?
• Was it standard practise for no written records to be kept of any such conversation, notwithstanding its seriousness?
• Was David Porter involved in these initial conversations?
• Did you discuss it ever with Nigel Stock?
• Did you discuss it ever with Paul Butler, at the time Lead Bishop for Safeguarding?
• Did you discuss it ever with Tim Thornton?
• In our meeting you stated that the Church Times had shown that the police were informed. Are you really alleging that the testimony of three anonymous policemen overrules the findings of a five-year review, when Keith Makin has interviewed all those involved?  Makin clearly states there was no formal referral.
• You state that you did not know “how serious and extensive the abuse was”. Are you claiming that you never saw the letter sent by Bishop Conway? Did Jo Wells never show you the attachment to the email?
• Did you, yourself, or your office, contact the police if you believed an investigation was underway?
• Did you discuss the case with Elizabeth Hall? ( never mentioned in your letter)
• You stated at LBC that you “kept in touch and found out what was going on” with Bishop Conway and spoke to him regularly. How many times did you speak to him directly about this case? You do not mention him once in your letter.
• What did you mean by “kept in touch” (LBC) ?
• Can you recall a single conversation, with a single person, after August 2013?
• You described, at LBC a “rigorous” investigation in 2013. What did you mean by that?
• Did Stephen Conway ever ask for your help in getting  a satisfactory response from Cape Town?
• I continued to write to Diocese of Ely until August 2015 asking whether Smyth had been found and stopped. Were you made aware of how little progress there had been?
• You met with Thabo Makgoba one-to-one in October 2013, just after you had received the disclosure. Did you raise with him either the abuse or the poor response from Cape Town?
• Did you ever discuss Smyth with Thabo between 2013-2017?
• You originally stated that you wrote to Thabo in 2013, but subsequently said the letter was on another subject. You were in direct contact with Thabo, so why not ask about Smyth?
• Did you ever raise Smyth with Garth Counsell between 2013-2017?
• You state that the Province in South Africa had not replied. That is untrue. When you were told they had not replied, what did you do?
• What advice was David Porter giving you during this period? Did he advise you to keep in touch with Stephen Conway? As your Chief of Staff was he keeping in touch and ensuring this was dealt with properly?
• Was there discussion of reaching out to victims and offering support in August 2013?

2013ff

• Did you make any attempt to call David Fletcher between 2013-17?
• Did you discuss Smyth with Jonathan Fletcher in that period?
• Did you talk to Alasdair Paine at any stage in that period?
• In 2017, you stated that you immediately called Charlie Arbuthnot (and others, see below). Did you speak to anyone “in that network” (in the widest sense) about Smyth in the period 2013-2017?
• Did you ask Elizabeth Hall to keep you abreast of developments? Did she?
• You stated outside LBC “nobody has a chance of covering up, all that is in place now”. Do you accept that the Smyth abuse did not become public in 2013, and a layperson would therefore describe it as a “cover up”?
• You write that it is a “deep grief that you did not get justice”. You do NOT apologise, here or later, for your “personal and moral failings” once you had received the disclosure in 2013. The disclosure should have raised enormous red flags because of your historic links to Smyth and Iwerne. If nothing else there were enormous reputational risks for you, given your historic links to Smyth. Did you not feel you should take on a personal responsibility, even if only to make sure you could not be criticised?
• Do you accept that you had a “moral and personal responsibility” to have done more in 2013?
• To victims it looks like John Smyth was, even inadvertently, protected. The same could be said of Titus and Iwerne. Were they put above the interests of victims?
• Do you accept that victims called for your resignation primarily for your moral and personal failings?
• It is now repeated often that you resigned over the church’s failings. Do you accept this diverts from your own personal failings?
• Can you understand that such distancing from your personal failings makes victims very angry?
• Did you not get that message loud and clear in our meeting?

2017

• Do you now accept that the “inaccurate assertions” after the Channel 4 documentary were always going to be deeply offensive to victims?
• Should we expect greater accuracy from an Archbishop of Canterbury?
• Why did you never reply to Andy Morse’s open letter?
• Andy tried killing himself on Christmas Day 2013, four months after you were informed. Have you thought what the position would now be if he had been successful?
• Have you written to Andy, personally, to apologise?
• You stated that, immediately after the Channel 4 programme, you called Charlie Arbuthnot and others. Can you list who you called ? Did you, at this stage, call Davd Fletcher?
• Did you call Keith Makin immediately that he started in 2019 and ask to give your account?
• How many times, over five years were you interviewed by Keith Makin?
• You do not mention David Porter once, yet from c2017-2019 he was our main contact with Lambeth. What was your brief to David?
• Are you aware he promised a meeting with yourself, your testimony, and a meeting with some “grandees”? ( I recall only Julian Henderson, though a QC and one other were mentioned)
• Did he discuss with you directly the many meetings I had with him?
• Your chaplain breached the confidentiality of two victims. Did she report that breach immediately to yourself? What did you do? Did you report her?
• I formally complained about yourself in 2020. I was told that there would be no investigation as you had previously been investigated, and cleared, in 2017. Please confirm that there was an investigation in 2017 into your own personal handling of the disclosure. Who interviewed you?
• I was told in 2020 that the 2017 investigation was confidential, that I could not see any minutes, notes or any final report. Please confirm this was a formal, professional process, under a Core Group.
• Are you aware that I was told that in 2020 there would merely be a “review of documents” to check the 2017 investigation had been thorough and properly conducted
• How many times did Anna Flowers interview you in 2020?
• Were you informed the reason why my 2020 complaint was dismissed ? I was told that, in 2017, you had been investigated and cleared of any wrongdoing?
• In the light of your subsequent resignation, were the 2017, and 2020 decisions fundamentally flawed?
• In the light of significant uncertainty around the status of the 2017 and 2020 investigations, please can you confirm how many times you have been formally interviewed by the National Safeguarding Team, separately to Keth Makin?
• Is there anything in this letter that you failed to tell Keith Makin? Is there anything you told Keith Makin that you have not included in your letter (subject to required confidentialities) ?
• It has taken you eight years to provide this account. Do you understand why your statement that “I stated internally and externally that I believed that we should be as transparent as possible, holding nothing back” is particularly triggering for victims ?
• Do you understand why your disclosure ( in the 2021 Zoom) that you funded Smyth in Africa led victims to ask “what else have you not told us?”)

Africa

• There have been repeated calls at General Synod for separate reviews into the Zimbabwe period (1984-2000) and the South Africa period (2000-2018). These have always been refused. Did you endorse that response?
• If not, why did you not intervene?
• I am informed there has been no settlement, no compensation, no redress (and no justice) for the family of Guide Nyachuru. Is that right?
• Thabo Makgoba has only recently announced an inquiry into why South Africa failed to respond adequately in 2013. Why did you not press him to start this process in 2017?
• How will you and the Church of England respond if the South African investigation finds victims of serious, criminal abuse in the period 2013-Feb 2017?

Scripture Union and Titus

• Please detail (subject to confidentialities)  all attempts you made to engage with Titus and SU.
• Did you call them both immediately in 2017?
• Are you aware that SU have not published their review in its entirety?
• What sanctions do you think should apply to Titus and SU for their “cover ups” from 2013-17 (let alone the previous 30 years) ?
• Paul Butler was a Bishop, but also an officer of SU. What pressure were you able  to bring to bear on SU through Butler, especially as he himself had been informed in 2015 ?
• Are you aware of the seven known alleged abusers associated with the Iwerne network?

Investigations

• It is clear that only now, eight years later, those who might be at fault over the 2013 failings are being investigated by this new “four stage” process and Panel. Why did the CofE not start proceedings in 2017?
• Th CofE acted very quickly over Lord Carey (Smyth); the Bishop of Lincoln; Bishop Wambunya; and Lord Sentamu. Why has no one been held to account for the failings over Smyth in 2013?
• If you assert that you resigned over the Church of England failings, but not your own, can you confirm that you might be investigated by this new Panel process over your own failings?
• Will you accept any sanction imposed by this process? They state they are basing their findings on the conclusions of Keith Makin. He stated that you failed in a “moral and personal” capacity, so must accept those findings if used against you?

Other questions

• Do you believe “victims have to come first” as you stated at LBC?
• Do you really regret not meeting victims until after the Makin Review?
• You stated that you meet victims regularly. Did you meet a single Smyth victim before 2024 (excluding those you would encounter as part of your Office, such as Andrew Watson)?
• Why had you made no public statement about Jonathan Fletcher (while I accept you cannot do so now, you could have done so prior to him being charged) ? Do you understand that for victims, the Iwerne world of Jonathan, Smyth, etc is all interlinked?
• You wrote to victims of Jonathan as soon as his abuse was exposed. Why not also to Smyth victims?
• You stated that you met with Anne Atkins, and very quickly. Why not victims?
• Partners and spouses of Smyth victims have had no support whatsoever. There are now four divorces. Do you believe the duty of care of the Church of England extends to others affected by the same abuse?
• It is only the media that has brought into light the abuse by Smyth, Jonathan Fletcher, and Mike Pilavachi. Should the Church of England proactively investigate and disclosure abuse when they learn about it ( depending of course on the exact disclosure and circumstances?)
• It is only pressure from victims that got us our meetings with you. Should you have been more proactive?

Graham 27 Jan 2025