The reader of my blog posts has probably been exposed to more detail of the Martyn Percy affair than they may wish to have.  Gilo made some very perceptive comments in his piece last week but there is still, even at the cost of some repetition more to be said.  What we know and have been told in the public domain tells us a lot about the topic of bullying, harassment and outright unpleasantness that sometimes takes place, not only in an Oxford college, but within the Church itself. 

What can I say by way of comment over this conflict?  It is quite clear that Martyn has in the past upset the equilibrium and status quo in two powerful institutions.  In the first case, at Christ Church Oxford, a group of senior members have complained about him in his role of Head of House or Dean on two separate occasions.  We, as outsiders observers, have no detailed understanding of the first allegations made against him.   All we do know with some certainty is that a Tribunal was convened under the chairmanship of a retired judge, Sir Andrew Smith.  This found him innocent of the accusations made against him – all twenty-seven charges were dismissed.  Our sympathy for Martyn’s cause is aroused by the fact that he had to endure two years of pressure and stress.  We feel for anyone who, in the course of allegations against them, is suspended from his work and made the object of a campaign of vilification and slander.  Moreover, who was denied the opportunity of even having a preliminary investigation before the Tribunal against him was convened. 

This Tribunal involved the spending of huge resources of charitable money, thought to be over £2 million. Martyn’s own legal costs have been huge.  When the Tribunal verdict was announced, we hoped that the problem would go away.  We might also have hoped that the original accusers might express a little remorse for having spent so much charitable money to further their cause.  But no, the current situation is that the same accusers among the governing body have re-emerged to continue the campaign against the Dean.  This time they are using a quite different set of accusations and a different method of harassing and undermining Martyn.  Having exhausted the procedures afforded to them by the college statutes, the complainants have moved on to attack him using the tools of the quasi-legal structures of the Church of England.

Those of us who support Martyn and his principled stand over a variety of topics in current church debates, are aware that he has made enemies.  As an avowed progressive, he is not easily going to fit in with the prevailing opinions of a largely conservative bench of bishops.  The one particular issue over the past five years that has rattled many cages is the George Bell affair.  Martyn has prominently identified himself with those who regard the posthumous trashing of Bishop Bell’s reputation as contrary to the laws of justice and historical truth.  Many of us, with Martyn, regarded the alacrity with which Church leaders assigned guilt to Bell as being an attempt to show a decisiveness while many other more recent safeguarding allegations were being mishandled.  

The method of assessing and evaluating the Bell evidence was the infamous core group, the same tool that is now being deployed against Martyn himself.  It would not be hard to suggest, to use Gilo’s expression, that, in both case, the core group has been ‘weaponised’ against the subject of the investigation.  This is especially true when the person at the heart of the enquiry has no representation to speak on their behalf.  Again, in both Bell’s case and Martyn’s, similar church establishment mechanisms can be seen at work.  The NST have put Martyn “on trial” without conducting even the most minimal inquiry or interview with him.  The core group contained people who were prosecuting him for their own ends, and were heavily invested in pre-judging the outcome of any investigation.  This is identical to what the Dean had to endure at Christ Church from 2018.

As with Christ Church, so with the NST.  The Dean is forced to pay for his own defence to protect his reputation and integrity.  It was noticeable that the Anglican hierarchy were largely mute when the original Christ Church accusations were aired.  There was a sense that, while support was being expressed by hundreds of individuals across the country and £100,000 raised for legal costs, official support from the Anglican hierarchy was largely absent.

The appeal to the Church of England and its National Safeguarding Team by complaining Christ Church dons to examine accusations against the Dean of Christ Church, has already been explored in Gilo’s piece.  The mention by Gilo of the ‘right part’ of the NST hints at private conversations and plotting at the highest levels of the Church of England taking place with the complainants at Christ Church.  I understand that as far as the lawyers acting for Martyn are concerned, the NST has absolutely no jurisdiction in Martyn’s case.  Martyn is not an employee of the Church of England; he is not being accused of being a danger to children or vulnerable adults.  We also note the “vulnerable adult” terminology used by the NST.  The correct term is “adults-at-risk”, which is defined and deployed in higher education, local government and the NHS.  The NST are out of touch.  The safeguarding issues that are the focus of the enquiry had already been dealt with properly by Martyn, according to University and college protocols. 

Once again, a core group is being used to achieve a particular end.   What we see in the process seems to run counter to natural justice and fairness.  It also seems to take no notice of Lord Carlile’s remarks and the recommendations that were made by him in 2017.  We refer particularly to those that laid out how all interested parties should be represented. These were accepted in total by the Church of England and now they are ignored in what has become a notorious case, ensuring that the whole world is watching (and judging!) the Church of England as it stumbles ahead with a faulty grasp of proper procedures in this complex case.

If Martyn can stand up to the pressure currently being put on him, it could help expose the evident power abuses and appalling misuses of procedure which seem to be operating in the NST.  If the NST were to see sense and pull out of its involvement in the Christ Church debacle, this would have a desirable outcome.  it would allow the NST to be regarded as a properly accountable organisation. No longer would the considerable power of this body be used against individuals without clear and consistent protocols in the way that it operates.  Someone made the decision to allow the NST to enter the treacherous waters of internal Oxford collegiate politics. 

Who was it and what are the systems in place to query and even put a block on such a risky, even impetuous, decision? If, as is likely, the NST comes out of this disastrous intervention with egg on its face, who is going to take responsibility for this financial and ethical car-crash? In many ways this whole episode goes far beyond what Martyn may or may not have done to upset members of his college.  The issue has become one of the church using its legal structures in ways that deny compassion, natural justice and the basic qualities of care.  Once again the Church of England seems incapable of handling its power without hurting and damaging people.  Legalism, the power of money and privilege seem to be prominent.    If the general public sees some of this behaviour and is unimpressed, can we really blame them? 

Another question that is being asked by many of us is this.  If Martyn Percy deserved investigation over safeguarding issues with apparently such flimsy evidence being offered, then why not are other more pressing cases given attention?  There are several outstanding CDM claims against serving bishops which lie on file.  Presumably these can now be activated by victims and complainants? There is the case of Jonathan Fletcher which seems to be ignored by central church authorities, even though it reached front-page headlines of the Daily Telegraph.  If the allegations against Fletcher are even half-true, he still poses a safeguarding threat which should be a priority for the NST.  To focus on Martyn, who poses no such threat, and ignore Fletcher can only be described as a deeply political choice. 

Unless someone explains the real basis for NST involvement in the Christ Church factional disputes, Martyn’s supporters will conclude that the NST has become a political tool at the service of certain unaccountable factions within the Church of England.  If that surmise is correct, one would hope that the General Synod would wake up to this fact and vote the NST out of existence.  We cannot afford to have a rogue structure within the Church which operates with so much secrecy, factionalism and sometimes overt bullying.  Whoever authorised the unleashing of the NST on Martyn Percy has been responsible for taking an enormous gamble with the Church’s assets and reputation.  They have gambled on an outcome which, even if successful at one level, does no credit to the Church.  If the anonymous power brokers are, however, unsuccessful in what they are doing in Oxford, this may have the effect of destroying the NST structure altogether and their future ability to exercise power through it.

I do not know whether anyone reads the books by Adrian Plass anymore.  They are full of trenchant and perceptive comments about the church culture Plass was part of in the 80s.  There is one memorable passage in his Sacred Diary when he is speaking about the experience of being in a Bible study in his conservative charismatic church.  He describes how the passage for the week was read, and then all eyes were then turned to the leader, ’to find out what we think’.  Clearly there was an experience of bonding and merger in relation to worship.  That somehow was expected to be transferred into the way that individual thinking by members of the congregation was practised. 

 Church membership does indeed flourish when it successfully gives to people a sense of belonging and a place within the group.  Nevertheless, such belonging does not have to involve everyone thinking the same ‘correct’ thoughts as in Plass’ church.  Churches, both locally and nationally, can be said to be ‘bodies’ of which we are part.  When churches get this right, we find that members all receive a level of spiritual and emotional integration with others, which is life enhancing. The metaphor of the Church as the Body of Christ is also one that is richly evocative and potentially the subject of numerous sermons.   I introduce this idea of belonging and the metaphor of the body as a prelude to pointing out how, in some circumstances, this kind of experience can and does go wrong.   As an idea it needs to be approached with a certain caution.  In the first place when we join a group, we must become aware of the way that this membership will impact on what we think and say.  There is of course nothing wrong in being part of a group consensus.  Nevertheless, I would suggest that it is always important to be alert to the possibility that opinions are being formed by something we call ‘groupthink’.  This expression, which has been extensively studied over the past 60 years in social psychology circles, is a way of saying that when a group of people have identical ideas, there may be an unconscious merging process taking place.  This will often be unhealthy. In some contexts, such as in the military, it can be a potential cause of disaster.  To prevent such a potential catastrophe happening in this kind of situation the outsider, the dissenting opinion, must be given a voice and honoured for expressing it.

The Christian tradition has had a lot to say about outsiders and Jesus himself is described as the one who ‘went outside the gate’ to bring alienated sinful humanity back into the presence of God.  We also are encouraged to go to him ‘outside the camp, bearing the stigma that he bore’.   In life and death Jesus identified with outsiders, the sinners and riff-raff of his day.  But there is an earlier outsider in scripture that I want to focus on in this piece.   Janet Fife mentioned the OT prophets in a blog comment a few days ago.  The outsider prophet that especially comes to mind is the figure of Amos.  He is the classic dissenter and he stood outside social and religious norms simultaneously.  ‘I am no prophet nor a prophet’s son’.  His outside status was also confirmed by the fact he was a foreigner, (a Judaean in Israelite territory) and he was called to the menial task of a shepherd and ‘dresser of sycamore trees’.  Amos’ prophecies, directed against the northern kingdom of Israel and uttered around 720s BC, were devastating.  He saw little that would be left after a terrible destructive military incursion.  The details of Amos’ prophecies are not important here, but simply the fact that they exist.  Here we have a solitary figure, an outsider, a foreigner and an unqualified person speaking truth to an entire nation about what God had determined.  That nation did not listen and it was destroyed.

I do not think that we currently have a single Amos speaking to the Church of today.   We may, however, have the voice of Amos fragmented across the witness of many dissenting outsiders who have something to say to the church.   Institutions, whether entire countries or church bodies must learn to hear the prophetic voices spoken to them through the mouths of these outsiders.  Why might the outsider, the dissenting voice, have something important to say which is not being expressed within the group?  I am far from claiming that the outsider is always right or that institutions cannot speak truth to themselves.  What I am suggesting is that the ‘groupthink’ principle warns us that no institution can afford to shut out the outside and independent voice.  That opinion or insight is not to be blocked off.  Indeed, anyone who expresses an opinion which is not reflective of a group norm is at least likely to be worth listening to. 

In this reflection I cannot help but think that, in the world of safeguarding, the prophets are easy to identify.  These outsiders, the ones who see things clearly by being free of the encumbrance of institutional interests and values, are the group we collectively call survivors.  Survivors speak truth to power.  They have passed through the crucible of abuse.  Whether or not they remain loyal to the institution that was involved in their abuse, they still have valuable insights and a critical understanding of it.   Janet pointed out that the other outsiders will include such groups as the BAME and the LGBT communities.  They also will see things differently because of their long experience of exclusion. 

In the post-Covid days that lie ahead of us, church leaders are going to have to do, among other things, an enormous amount of listening to ensure that their institution will still be fit for purpose in the future.  Whether in the realm of safeguarding, which is at the heart of this blog’s concerns, or addressing some other focus, we can hope that the church will be able to hear what is being said by others who may not be members.  The word of the outsider, the critic even, may be the word of God to this generation of church leaders and our own House of Bishops.  Survivors of abuse, possessing an enormous wealth of experience and understanding of what is involved in this area, have a vast quantity of useful things to say about the right way forward.  They should not be consulted as a kind of public relations exercise, but all their words should be carefully listened and pondered in case, like Amos, they are speaking the prophetic words and will of God.   Ignoring their witness would be both foolish as well as expensive for the church.

The prophet, the outsider, is one who utters the words of God to the institution, even though that word may be uncomfortable or even disturbing.  To compare the state of the Kingdom of Israel in 720 BC and the Church of England in 2020 may seem a little far fetched.  But, in both situations, there are real serious threats which are sufficiently serious for me to suggest that such parallels do exist.  Church leaders today must listen, not only to its internal groupthink, but also to its minorities, the survivors, the BAME community and others who seem to have received the Good News, but struggle to be heard by the  rest of the church. It is both hearing and responding to the prophetic word of God that that the church may find a new impetus and power to take it into the future.

by Gilo

Having written a piece about the use of ‘core groups’ and the Clergy Discipline Measure, to be discussed by the House of Bishops this month, Surviving Church has received a further contribution on the topic from Gilo. Gilo’s current piece focuses on the Martyn Percy saga at Christ Church Oxford and explores the way that Church of England official safeguarding procedures have somehow become entangled in the affair. The process has become messy and it is hard to see a good outcome when good practice and the pursuit of fairness appear to have been bypassed along the way. It would not be an exaggeration to suggest that the entire structure of Church of England safeguarding is on trial in this one case. And yet the situation presents to survivors a new opportunity to bring legitimate complaints about many serving bishops. In the past, complaints have been routinely dismissed, but now we would expect to see core groups and action. Ed.

The National Safeguarding Team has instigated a ‘core group’ to investigate complaints against Professor Martyn Percy by disaffected members of Christ Church alleging safeguarding failures. This follows the comprehensive dismissal by Sir Andrew Smith (a retired High Court judge) of the original case brought against Percy by members of the Governing Body seeking his removal from office. To many who have followed the media stories on this saga, this latest development resembles a kangaroo court with the deployment of weaponised safeguarding in a desperate attempt to oust the Dean. It was reported by the Church Times (29 May) that Percy has no representation on this core group but must adhere to its diktat. It seems likely that this action by the NST will add considerably to the reputational damage already done Percy by the group of college dons.

As has been previously written on this blog and elsewhere – NST core groups are already a deeply contentious issue. There’s a striking parallel here with they way they’ve been used in survivors’ cases as little more than a PR management exercise. In my case, the NST had the lawyer present who led the settlement for Ecclesiastical Insurance – but I had no representation and didn’t know a core group had taken place for 18 months. The appropriation of the NST in Percy’s situation is likely to rebound heavily on an already mistrusted and discredited Church of England national safeguarding.

It has been reported that two of the dons pitched against Percy sit on this core group. If either of them sent or received proposals to “poison” the Dean and fish his “wrinkly withered little body” out of the river, then the NST has entered the realm of Ortonesque farce. In most organisations emails at this level of delinquency about a colleague, and circulated widely amongst a professional body, would result in disciplinary action. Survivors have frequently written angry letters to and about bishops – I openly include myself in their number but have never expressed a wish to see particular Bishops fished out of the Thames from Lambeth Bridge! The media reported that the Senior Censor tried hurriedly to get the College Council to self-delete the full report in what appeared to be an attempt to bury these juvenile emails. The Senior Censor apparently sits on this core group. You couldn’t make it up!

But more disturbingly, I have heard on good authority and am aware that others have also heard, that at a recent Governing Board of the college, one of the senior college figures boasted to the Trustees “the wily Censors have made sure they complained to the right part of the National Safeguarding Team”. If true, both ends of that statement are extraordinary. I don’t know if the NST are aware of this. I don’t imagine so. There would be an outcry across the Church if the NST had been complicit in their own ugly appropriation. It would raise questions about who is controlling different bits of this structure, and in particular who is pulling the strings of the “right part” of the National Safeguarding Team. I suspect Synod members would throw their hands up in horror and ask: how the hell does one rescue a Church’s national safeguarding so far down a road of ethical dysfunctionality?

But this core group sets an interesting precedent. Quite a few Church of England Bishops have been accused of safeguarding failings, cover up, poor response or no response towards survivors, gaslighting, blanking and fogging, dishonesty – yet how many have had core groups convened about them by the National Safeguarding Team? It would now seem that a complaint from a single source against a senior church officer is no longer time-limited, but will result in the formation of a core group on which the complainant can be personally represented. The person under investigation will presumably be asked to step aside from safeguarding responsibilities during the investigation. Although the circumstances in which this has come about are ugly and point to church officialdom targeting a well-known critic – the situation has unexpected potential for survivors. There are a significant number of survivors who have credible and legitimate claims that serving bishops have mishandled disclosures of abuse or have been dishonest in their response. We might welcome the opportunity to have core groups established, and to have complaints acted upon at last. I suspect the number of bishops who could feasibly be asked to stand down through such action might be surprising.

There are bishops on the National Safeguarding Steering Group (NSSG) who in mine and others view shouldn’t be on that group until retraining, moral reorientation and proper apologies render them fit to respond to survivors with honesty, decency, compassion and a sense of urgency to situations. The same could be said for other bishops. Matt Ineson could justifiably bring legitimate complaints against four bishops and one retiring archbishop. If the NST were to follow the same route as they have done with the Dean of Christ Church – all five would be required to abide to the conditions imposed by the core group while those investigations take place. And Matt Ineson would have representation on each of the core groups, or one combined core group, and could be present himself presumably if he so wished. And that is only one such situation. There are plenty of others. Incidentally the CDM complaint against the Bishop of Lincoln is also proceeding out of time, which again raises questions in relation to CDM complaints made against other bishops – all of which were ruled out of time. It would seem sensible to find out from the Director of Safeguarding what the formal route now is for complaints to be made, so that several bishops can be asked to stand aside without further delay while core groups are set up. The NST can hardly ignore any such request. Survivors might speculate as to which part of the NST is the “right part” to complain to for action. If, for example, you send an email to safeguarding@churchofengland.org, does that go to the right part, or the wrong part?

Returning to Martyn Percy who I know a little, he wrote a chapter for Letters to a Broken Church and has been an unwavering ally for survivors. My personal view is that he has more integrity and courage than many current bishops whose response to the abuse crisis (with a few notable exceptions) has shown them to be a run-for-hills culture … insipid at best, downright dishonest at worst. I end with a quote from his chapter in our book:

Like many loyal servants of the Church of England, I have watched IICSA over the past three weeks with a growing, troubling, deep sense of shame. This is a hard thing to admit. To know that you belong to a body where you can no longer believe of trust the account of the polity or practice that is being offered in defence of its behaviours by its own leaders. To know that the real victims in this tragic farce who are still waiting for basic, fundamental rights that should be givens for the church – recognition, remorse, repentance – are abused twice over.

In the first instance, it is by their actual abuser. The second time, and far worse, is the subsequent abuse perpetrated by the Church. For this is a church that is deaf, dumb and blind – and seemingly wilfully indifferent to the suffering undergone by those abused – and then addresses this with little more than an incompetent veneer of safeguarding practice, which only further compounds the original act of abuse.

The Church Times’ 22^nd May issue contained a notice that the Clergy Discipline Measure (CDM) would be discussed at the House of Bishops’ meeting in June.  This debate is a hopefully a precursor to a replacement or a radical amendment to this piece of church legislation.  Since the CDM came into effect in 2006, it has been controversial.  Some who have suffered its outworking have experienced it as extremely stressful, painful and traumatic.  Indeed, the legislation is regarded by many as the most appalling piece of church self-regulation that has ever been conceived.  Left intact or with only minor tweaks, the CDM has been thought to have the power to cause lasting damage to the Church. 

When the Church of England brought in CDM, it was to replace the extremely cumbersome regulations that existed in church law to tackle the problem of clergy malfeasance.  Before 2006, the Church could do nothing to discipline an erring cleric unless he/she broke the laws of the country.  The CDM was an attempt to make it possible to take action when the church authorities deemed behaviour by a member of the clergy to be unbecoming or the cause of scandal.   

One of the main changes was that anyone, Archdeacon or ordinary parishioner, could make a complaint about a clergyperson.  Whether the complaint was trivial or weighty, it had to be examined and taken seriously.  Over the years since 2006, numerous issues have arisen over the implementation of the measure.  Some have pointed to the expense while others have complained about the inordinate amount of time involved.  Survivors are asked to provide written evidence to back up their complaint, and may spend many months compiling a dossier that is never read; yet the one-off submission of written evidence is the only evidence that is allowed.  After the conclusion of the CDM, there may be a review – but in one case the views of the survivors were redacted from the version that was posted online.  

During April, an article on the CDM and church safeguarding, by Josephine Stein, was published in the journal Modern Believing.  The article is a powerful critique of the way the CDM has been implemented and deserves to be read by the bishops and anyone concerned about the way that the CDM has failed abuse survivors. It extends points on this topic made in Stein’s essay in Letters to a Broken Church, and explains why reform or rejection of the  CDM is urgently needed for the sake of the health of the whole Church. 

Stein’s article explains why the CDM has been an unsuitable tool for dealing with cases of clergy sexual abuse and other safeguarding issues. Each suspected case of abuse will involve at least one survivor/victim as well as an alleged perpetrator.  Any legal process will do little or nothing for an abused person or victim.  The CDM seeks evidence that can be verified independently, which is nearly impossible as abuse is normally conducted in private and often uses insinuation and/or non-verbal threats.  The abuser typically uses grooming and spinning a web of secrecy around the events, especially in a case involving children, to further conceal his actions

Only through a psychologically informed process of interviewing an alleged victim, is there likely to be uncovered what Stein calls ‘dyadic dynamics’ between the perpetrator and his target (most perpetrators are male).  This expression captures well the nuance of a manipulative process whereby a powerful individual exploits one who is weaker.  A process based only upon written evidence is hardly the best way to uncover the truth about abusive behaviour.  Finding out what really happened will be better accomplished by informed  questioning by a psychologist, who could also very quickly spot false accusations.  

An abused person who has suffered at the hands of an abusive leader needs always to be at the heart of any process after the event.  The CDM process, by being focussed on establishing blame and punishment, allows the victim of abuse to be put to one side.  Practical outcomes, like suitable counselling, psychotherapy and/or spiritual direction for a victim and steps to prevent a perpetrator continuing the pattern of abuse, need to be put in place as part of the overall process.  If these important issues are not dealt with, the harm to the victim as well as the reputation of the Church will be massive and long-lasting. 

Stein considers the role of core groups which sometimes form part of the Church’s response to allegations of abuse.  The setting up of such a group might, on the face of it, be seen to be a good way of informally resolving and obviating  a full CDM process.  In practice, as we saw in an earlier blog post, these core groups have not always been well managed.  Furthermore, core groups ignore confidentiality by ‘sharing’ information widely, which may enable the perpetrator and his allies to take retaliatory action against the ‘accuser’.  This is deeply unsafe.  The focus according to Stein has been on ‘managing’ the problem rather than seeking the best outcome for all concerned.  When core groups work in a way that excludes a survivor, they can become a gross attack on his/her privacy and well-being and will tend to obstruct justice.

To mention one recent example, the core group set up by the Church to examine the case of Martyn Percy at Christ Church Oxford seems to have been ‘weaponised’ against him.  It is unclear who authorised this process, but it has led to a situation where allegations against Martyn are discussed in a forum where he is not represented.  Private Eye has examined this case in detail.  Because of all the publicity over this case, we are likely to see the eventual discrediting of core groups as currently constituted as a suitable response to safeguarding allegations. 

Stein’s article makes some very important points about the needs of survivors which the CDM process does not address.  Survivors of abuse, she claims, do not usually have money at the top of the list of their needs.  However, her comments on psychological, spiritual, legal and financial support for survivors need to be taken to heart. 

Negotiating settlements with insurance companies and their lawyers is also experienced as damaging and re-traumatising.  There is also the issue of legal fees for survivors.  Legal fees and internal costs to the insurers can end up more than double the amount ultimately received as a settlement, which by any objective standard would be considered incommensurate with the costs borne by the survivor related to the abuse.  Stein refers to a quote from an essay by Andrew Graystone published in Letters to a Broken Church.   Graystone’s question for church leaders in their approach towards survivors is this: ‘not .. how little can I pay them, but how much can I love them.’

The other major issue that Stein brings to our attention is the ‘one size fits all’ approach to clergy under accusation by the CDM.  Clearly there are different levels of misbehaviour.  Once again, having an independent assessor trained in a relevant discipline can uncover such things as immaturity or a personality profile that includes habitual dishonesty that may lie at the heart of a case of misbehaviour.  Such assessment may sometimes be able to ‘rescue’ an offending individual from being lost to the profession permanently if some sort of rehabilitation is appropriate.  In some cases, something similar to Circles of Accountability and Support may be the right way forward. 

In her final comments, Stein expresses her sense of urgency that the conflict laden/legalistic approach to clergy discipline must be superseded.  We may hope with her that the Church of England through the action of the House of Bishops will discover a much broader range of responses both to perpetrators and victims of abuse.  Failures in this important area not only make the Church an unsafe place, but they undermine the Church’s standing with the wider community.  That collapse of trust is a serious matter.      

by Janet Fife

‘You’re in a man’s world now. You’ll have to fit in.’ So said one of my colleagues soon after I was ordained deacon in 1987. That put a damper on my newly ordained enthusiasm. I’d thought I was serving God, and found I was only working in a gentlemen’s club. Not a member but a menial. Some years later, in a different diocese, that feeling was reinforced when a senior cleric told me, ‘The real reason we don’t have women on the bishop’s senior staff is that, if we did, we couldn’t tell the same kind of jokes in our meetings.’

The Church of England is infested with men’s clubs, both literal and metaphorical. It has long been clear that they do not serve the interests of women, BAME people, and what used to be called the working classes – anyone, in fact, who is not a ‘gentleman’. More recently it’s become obvious how destructive they are to the interests of survivors of abuse.

The House of Bishops excluded women until recently, and still has too few to change the culture. Since its deliberations are secret, and neither agendas nor minutes are ever published, we know little about what goes on there. We do know, however, that very few bishops against whom safeguarding complaints are made face a penalty. The most notorious case is that of Matt Ineson, who reported his rape by a priest to an archdeacon (now a bishop), two bishops and the Archbishop of York. None acted on Matt’s disclosure; CDM complaints against them were ruled out of time. Bishops protect each other.

Forward in Faith and the Society, defending the seal of the confessional, oppose mandatory reporting of abuse. Experts have expressed concern that some abusers exploit confession to free them of guilt so they can abuse again.

At the other end of the churchmanship spectrum is ReNew, the conservative evangelical constituency.  ReNew is linked to Reform, AMIE, Church Society, and Titus Trust. Many ReNew leaders are products of the boys-only Iwerne (now Titus Trust) camps, as is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Titus Trust and ReNew leaders strongly resist sharing information about John Smyth, Jonathan Fletcher, and other alleged abusers associated with the Iwerne camps. Titus Trust, with income nearing £2 million p.a., fought claims for compensation from Smyth and Fletcher survivors. So far they have settled with only three of over 100 victims; sums paid to them are far exceeded by the sums paid to Titus’ expensive lawyers and PR firms.

Nobody’s Friends, the elite private dining club centred on Lambeth Palace, was largely unknown until it featured in evidence given to IICSA (the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse) last summer. Lord Lloyd of Berwick, a former Law Lord, wrote to Archbishop Carey on Peter Ball’s behalf in January 1993, saying, ‘”May I presume on a brief acquaintanceship at dinners of Nobody’s Friends?”’ Lord Lloyd continued to lobby Lambeth Palace on Ball’s behalf well into 1994. Nobody’s, which first met in 1800, consists of half clergy and half laypeople:  Tory grandees, judges, public school headmasters, and the like. Historically all male (women were first admitted in 2004), Nobody’s has been a place for men to exercise influence and angle for preferment. It currently has over 150 members. In Lord Lloyd’s evidence we saw how such a club may serve the interests of abusers over those of their victims.

Freemasonry is one of the oldest and largest male clubs, and like the others has a reputation for secrecy. The extent of its influence within the Church of England is hard to discover, but undoubtedly exists. In 1984 a retired Sussex priest told me of his membership in a Chichester vicars’ Lodge; this was while Eric Kemp was diocesan bishop and Peter Ball bishop of Lewes. Years later the social responsibility adviser of another diocese expressed his concern that all three archdeacons, the heads of every major diocesan committee, and the diocesan secretary’s husband were Masons and that diocesan financial decisions reflected Masonic priorities.

 What all these men’s societies have in common is that they have close links with the Establishment and exercise influence within the Church in secretive ways. They operate on behalf of vested interests and for the benefit of their own members, and hate transparency. Stephen Parsons and Gilo, writing on the blog SurvivingChurch, are doing much to expose the ways in which these and other groups exercise patronage and work against the interests of survivors of abuse.  

The Shemmings Report into abuse in Chichester Diocese has a valuable section on networks and how they function. It notes:

“at different times, sexual offenders were operating in the organisation which, due to the particular type of inter-connectedness of the ‘network’ just described, means that they were influencing others in the network, sometimes deliberately but often unknowingly.”

This applies also to those who fail to take action against offenders. When an archbishop gives inaccurate information about Iwerne abusers, is that an honest mistake or is he motivated by loyalty to his ‘club’? When a bishop who frequents Masonic functions does not act on a priest’s confession of abuse, we wonder whether the Masonic connection has any relevance. But whatever the influences at play here, we know it is not the interests of the victims or children which rank first with these prelates.

Safeguarding cannot be effective in a Church where the interests and loyalties of clubs and networks predominate over values of justice and truth. The shepherds cannot protect the sheep while occupied by feasting.

And so I pray, in the words of the anonymous canticle ‘As one who travels in the heat’:

…you have blessed me with emptiness, O God;

You have spared me to remain unsatisfied.

And now I yearn for justice;

Like an infant that cries for the breast,

And cannot be pacified,

I hunger and thirst for oppression to be removed,

And to see the right prevail.

Amen.

I have had in mind to write an idiot’s guide to the byzantine complexities of the Church of England’s safeguarding institutions. I recently received this anonymous letter from the future explaining with great clarity the way that the Church in 2025 proposes to deal with bishops and clergy who go astray in some way. The consequence of entering into the processes of church discipline will have the result of driving everyone involved into a state of complete bewilderment and despair. We can hope that decisions made in 2020 will prevent this Kafkaesque future coming to pass. We still have five years to get things right! Surviving Church identifies with the sentiments of this letter but it was written by a contributor, not the Editor.

The National Safeguarding Team

Lambeth Palace, London SE1 7JU

April 1^st 2025

Dear Bishop,

As you will be aware, the role of the National Safeguarding Team (NST) has broadened over the last year, following amendments made to the Clergy Discipline Measure of 2003. Our remit now covers all areas of safeguarding, including any sensitive spheres relating to the conduct of clergy, if it is alleged that they might pose a risk to the health, safety, security and wellbeing of any member of the public who might feel endangered.

We are writing to let you know that we have received a number of complaints about your driving from one of your neighbours, and who also represents your Neighbourhood Watch.  You have been seen driving erratically on several separate occasions.  A couple of times on your own, early in the morning. Twice at night, late, returning home.  And on at least two occasions, driving near children who were on their way to school.  Your neighbour has strong reasons to believe that you are driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, and that you might pose a danger to the public, and may inadvertently cause injury to someone.  Or worse, be responsible for a fatality.

Obviously you will understand that the Church of England cannot afford to be seen condoning senior clerics who might be intoxicated whilst driving.  We are all aware of what a serious public concern drink-driving constitutes.  We have therefore convened a Core Group to investigate this matter. We have taken seriously the representations of your neighbours. We have also looked into your drinking habits (e.g., dinners, events, receptions, etc.). We have also checked with the police and the relevant local traffic monitoring bodies to see if you had been caught speeding recently, or driving dangerously.  No offences have been reported to the police, to date. Your Neighbourhood Watch has not reported you to the police either, pending the outcome of our enquiries.

However, on the basis of your neighbour’s reported concerns, you will understand we are obliged to investigate such matters.  We therefore ask you to refrain from driving anywhere for the moment – either by yourself, or in carrying any passengers, especially children.  If you need to get anywhere by car, someone else must drive.  You cannot be in a car on your own, and must always be accompanied in a vehicle.  For the time being, you should not attend any event at which alcohol might be served, or to place yourself in any situation in which alcohol might be offered to you.  We also ask you to surrender your driving licence for the time being, until our investigations are completed.  Please do not attempt to contact any of your neighbours, your Neighbourhood Watch group, or anyone who has been a previous neighbour of yours.  Should any of them contact you, please refer them directly to us. 

The person to manage the investigation has already been appointed, and begun their work.  We hope that this process can be completed as soon as possible.  We have allocated you a support person to help with any pastoral needs you may have during this time.  You may also nominate an advocate on the Core Group for when it next convenes, but there is no date for that yet.  Unfortunately, we were unable to find an advocate when we originally met and set our terms of reference for the process.  Sometimes when convening a Core Group, the person under investigation would not initially be offered an advocate, or even told they might need one (because they may not) until the nature of the accusations are clarified.  This protects complainants, NST and the confidentiality of the process.  Our investigation strives to be fair and balanced, so you can be reassured that you will not be placed at any disadvantage by this. You may nominate a suitable friend or a colleague for the Core Group; but not a lawyer, as that is against our Guidelines.

Under the terms of reference for the investigation, we will begin to interview your neighbours, people you drink with when at formal and informal events connected with your duties and role, and also socially.  We will interview people you have driven, or have seen you drive.  We will want to pull together a balanced picture of how your drinking and driving might be connected.  In this, please be assured, there is no suggestion that you have a specific problem with alcohol, or are an alcoholic.  We will obviously consult with the police and the highways authorities to check on driving movements after you have attended official and social events that have involved the serving of alcohol.  We may need to have access to your medical records.

We cannot release the minutes, findings and conclusions of the first Core Group meeting.  They are confidential to the Core Group, whose membership we cannot disclose.  However, we believe that the concerns of your neighbours have met the threshold for implementing our investigation.  You are therefore asked to agree to this joint media statement:

“A complaint against the Bishop has been raised by individuals and an organisation in respect of allegations of drink-driving.  The matter will need to be formally investigated by the NST, and until the investigation is complete, the Bishop will not be driving, or attending any event or gathering at which alcohol may be served.  The Bishop has agreed to cooperate fully with the NST and its enquiries, and no further media statement will be made by either party until the investigation is completed”.

At the conclusion of this investigation there are a range of possible outcomes. In some cases, the findings can lead to you losing your licence and being banned from driving for life, or for a shorter period of five years. You could be asked to re-take your driving test, or attend some mandatory driving course, after which you will be further risk-assessed.  There might be penalties and/or restrictions attached to your driving licence, which, subject to continued compliance with the conclusions of the NST investigation, might be removed at a later date, yet to be determined. If alcohol abuse does emerge as an issue, we may require you to undertake counselling or some remedial medical treatment to address the cause and effect of excessive alcohol consumption.

Failure to comply with the NST’s investigation and the normative conditions attached to it, and as spelt out in this letter, will result in an automatic CDM being issued.  If the investigation discloses offences and misconduct that are serious, a CDM process will also be implemented.  In some cases, offences can lead to a prison sentence (which triggers an automatic CDM), though in this instance, your neighbour did not indicate that you had committed any criminal act.  However, I you will be relieved to learn that the investigation, just to be sure, will also cover this ground.

If you have any questions, we will try to deal with these as best we can. But please note, we do not enter into correspondence or negotiation with any individual who is under investigation, once the Core Group has met, and the terms of reference have been set. These, as you know, were agreed last week, and that is why we are writing to you, in order to inform you of these. 

The Lead Investigator will be in touch soon. As this is a confidential matter, we do not permit you to discuss this with any other person, and you may only refer to the agreed statement between us in the event of any media or any other enquiries.  Please be assured that your voluntary withdrawal from driving, social events at which alcohol is served, and other gatherings, is an entirely neutral act, and implies no guilt on your part.

Yours sincerely, The NST.

Appendix

We are aware that some people receiving a letter from the NST without any warning may initially find the contents disturbing.  Your allocated pastoral support person has been provided to help with any concerns you may have.  We have also produced this brief list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), and we anticipate that the answers to these FAQs will help to allay any misgivings you might have about the process you have now begun.

• Who will pay my legal fees? 

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

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

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

• Am I on some kind of a Trial?

No.  The NST, Core Group and our Lead Investigators do not have a role in establishing your guilt or innocence. Our role is to find out what has happened, and what or who may be at fault.  Once the investigation is concluded, it may be that the recommended decision of the Core Group is loss of licence to minister, suspension, barring from ministry, or completely cleared.  But this is not a trial, which is why you do not need legal support.

• What if the Investigation was or is being mishandled? 

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

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

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

• Is there an Independent Chair I can appeal to?

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

• Is there a right of appeal to any decision?

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

The current row over the rights and wrongs of Dominic Cumming’s trip to Durham may seem a long way from the concerns of this blog.  Indeed, it is, and I do not propose to spend time here analysing the ethical issues involved.  I happen to agree with those who feel that Cummings and Johnson have destroyed their right to impose their moral authority over the citizens of this country.  Few will want to take Johnson’s leadership seriously ever again.  What now interests me now is the way that many Anglican bishops and clergy have come out to protest openly over the lawlessness of our Prime Minister’s closest adviser.  When bishops seem to agree on an ethical principle in society, it is right for us to stop and take note as to what might really be going on.  Gilo has written a passionate twitter post on the topic, but he questions the bishops’ moral stance when it is viewed in the context of the Church’s dealing with survivors. The bishops are, in Gilo’s mind, guilty of gross hypocrisy.  I give a link to his post.  https://twitter.com/seaofcomplicity/status/1264916304244375553/photo/1     To put the question another way, are the bishops engaged in some kind of displacement activity?  Are they jumping on a bandwagon of moral outrage when there are issues within their own backyard that should be faced and owned up to?

I have argued for a long while that the bishops of the Church of England exercise oversight over an institution, at times severely compromised.  Our Church seems to operate on two levels, and it needs leadership for both these aspects.   The first is the theological or ideal aspect.  This attempts to embody and articulate the spirit and the ethos of its founder.  Thus, the Church would be expected to enrich us all by being a place of reconciliation, healing, forgiveness and joy.  The other aspect of the Church is the physical reality of its institutional embodiment.  This involves buildings, money and power.  It is extremely hard for this second dimension of the Church’s existence to remain anywhere approaching moral perfection.   Whenever power and money come into any situation, there will almost inevitably be conflict of some kind.  In the Church’s institutional life, as we constantly remind our readers, power games are often played, selfishness is common, and people are often exploited and treated badly.  You expect such behaviour in institutions in general, but somehow you always hope that the Church will operate according to a different set of rules and values.  Sadly this does not seem to be the case.

A newly ordained clergyman entering the Church to serve it, might hang on to an idealised picture of its life for many years.  Even though, as time goes by, examples of greed, narcissistic power games and hypocrisy enter his/her awareness, the hope clings on. Bad behaviour is believed to be in no way typical.  We can, thankfully, always find exceptions to patterns of selfish behaviour and self-serving among the Church’s leaders.  We need such examples to retain our faith in human nature and in the integrity of the Christian belief system.  But perhaps we also have the uncomfortable feeling that were we to know more, the total picture would be far more depressing than we know. 

A bishop who takes on the oversight of a whole diocese is the one person in the Church in the area who has access to knowledge about many of the things that may be wrong inside the structure.  That knowledge is a heavy burden.  Every example of incompetence, laziness or immoral behaviour among the clergy will be causing harm to the people of God.  How does the bishop deal with this information?  Episcopal power is not exercised in the way that the world understands.  Clergy cannot be hired and fired on a whim.  A bishop has often to sit by and let things take their course until death or retirement intervenes.  The Church has chosen to be an institution which protects its employees, but this comes at a cost that is high.  The one who knows how much this costs the church in terms of harm and lost opportunities for mission in a diocese is the one who bear this burden inside his/her head at all times.  If there is any sensitivity, possessing this knowledge will cause pain.  The role in protecting the institution, its reputation and good name means that all this knowledge remains the bishop’s alone.

  The bishop is also the figure that is nominally responsible for all those who live and work in the diocese.  He/she is also responsible or those who have lived and maybe suffered under a previous generation of clergy or leaders.  The bishop will often alone have access to the filing cabinets that contain that past.  Will he/she metaphorically dare to look inside these cabinets, or will there be a preference to leave them firmly shut in the hope that the secrets contain there will not emerge to further disturb his/her equilibrium?  The various examples of survivors finding bishops with ‘amnesia’ or less than sympathetic to their appeals for justice and support may perhaps be partly explained by this fact.  Some bishops have already had their sympathy and compassion shut down by what they already know.  Perhaps they are in some cases victims of what might be known as a form of compassion or justice fatigue?  Compassion fatigue may be another way of describing the way that sensitivity and a working for justice have been crushed out of an individual by too much exposure to the realities of human failure.  Learning about abuse takes its toll, even for someone on the edge of things like myself.  I am sure I could not manage to process as much information as bishops may have in their purview.  As T.S Elliot said: ‘Mankind cannot bear much reality’.

To return to the Cummings affair.  I am suggesting that the enthusiasm by the bishops to take a moral stance on this matter may perhaps be explained by the fact that most of the time the moral issues they face are fuzzy around the edges.   Here is a clear issue on which to take a stand and reclaim some kind of moral leadership.  The role of bishops in the church and society has been blunted in the fact that their own institution has been compromised, as Gilo points out, by failures over safeguarding in the past.  In some cases, their personal histories may have involved them in past, morally dubious, episodes in the church.  The scandals of Ball, Smyth and Fletcher to name but three, involved many other parties, including some currently serving bishops and clergy.  Some were guilty through silence, others by collusion in evil activities, and for every clergyman sent to prison, there must have been many who knew something but did nothing.   The IICSA hearings helped us to see a little what was going on behind the curtain in Lambeth Palace and in various Bishop’s palaces.  The preoccupation of those in authority in the Church seems always to have been to protect the institution and its employees, even if ordinary survivors were left out in the cold.   In contrast to Gilo, I am going to suggest that there needs perhaps to be a greater, more compassionate, understanding for the position many of the bishops find themselves in.  Their response to survivors has been poor to the point of being cruelly negligent.  Perhaps, were they able to speak to us as human beings, rather than as our spiritual superiors, we might glimpse a suffering and pain as well as a genuine concern for the needs of others.  Hitherto that has been hidden beneath the need to preserve the institutional shell.   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Gilo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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