From time to time I get the impression that politicians and Parliament are more sensitive to the public mood than are our church leaders. For one example we have the way that society as a whole is tolerant to the idea of same-sex marriage and this has gone through all the processes to become the law of the land. This has happened in spite of the opposition of church leaders. A more recent example of our government capturing the public mood is in the legislation connected with domestic abuse. All of us are appalled at the way that in many homes there is violence perpetrated, mainly against women. Up till recently the only violence that the law acted against was physical violence. If a man beat his wife, and these injuries could be observed, then the man could be punished with the full weight of the law. This was not hitherto the case for other forms of violence and abuse. There are of course numerous ways in which abuse in the home is experienced by individuals that do not involve actual physical harm. Under this new piece of legislation which will be widely welcomed, it is now recognised that there are these other forms of coercive and controlling behaviour and some of these are now deemed criminal. The law came into force on 29 December 2015.

The Internet has produced numerous commentaries on this new piece of legislation. The ones that are particularly interesting are the commentaries coming from specialist lawyers. They are no doubt interested in obtaining new clients who have been victims of this kind of abusive behaviour from husbands and male partners. One suspects that offences under the new law will be difficult to prove. Whether or not there will be many prosecutions as the result of this new law, its existence is of great importance. It takes the law further into areas which has hitherto avoided, namely the domain of emotional and psychological harm. It is an area that may eventually stretch further than the domestic scene to include churches and other religious groups. For the law even to speak about non-violent abuse does take us a little further in raising public awareness of what abuse, defined in this broader way, actually looks like.

Some of the examples given by the legal commentaries on this new legislation to describe controlling behaviour within a domestic situation sound like descriptions of Peniel church as recorded by the Langlois report. One example of controlling behaviour that the law wants to criminalise is the deliberate isolation of an individual from families and friends. This is a powerful mechanism of control that is also used by cults and churches the world over. The family outside the church is seen as a potentially destabilising influence on the individual and this competes with the controlling teaching of the church leader. The Langlois report is full of examples of marriages and families being ripped apart by the requirement that the member of Peniel must only associate with fellow members. It is good to see that any attempt to stop people freely associating with others, particularly relatives, is now considered in a domestic situation to be an aspect of possible criminal behaviour.

A second area which the legal commentaries give as examples of coercive and controlling behaviour in a family environment is the ‘enforcing of rules and activity which humiliate, degrade or dehumanise the victim’. It is a sad reflection on the way the Bible is used in some churches that we realise that some preaching by tyrannical leaders has precisely this end in view. I mentioned in a past blog that, on my only visit to Peniel Church, the whole sermon preached by Michael Reid was an exercise in humiliation. Perhaps the preaching did not in fact dehumanise the congregation but it certainly wanted to ensure that no one in the congregation would dare stand up and challenge him, the preacher. John Langlois in his report identified the way that if anyone did stand up to Michael Reid, his stock response was:’ look at my Ministry, who is God blessing more?’ The dehumanising behaviour at Peniel was even more evident in the way that Bible school students were treated. Before these young American women even arrived, it was given out that all of them were in Britain to sort out behavioural issues. Ordinary members of the congregation were not encouraged even to speak to them. Fortunately, as Kathryn will no doubt testify, they at least had each other to buttress them against these attempts to degrade and humiliate them.

The Christian faith, particularly in its extreme Calvinist expression, is very good at ‘putting people down and making them feel completely worthless’. The latter part of the previous sentence I have used is an almost word for word quote from one of commentaries on the new legislation. Here we have a chilling parallel between what controlling men attempt to do in a domestic situation and what church leaders on occasion seek to achieve in a controlling church environment. I am sure it is true that society in the UK, if it knew about such behaviour, would want to outlaw the kind of extremist preaching that has as its aim to make people feel utterly worthless. We are, however, some way away from this point of awareness. But it would be good if a new recognition of the way that control is exercised in some families were extended to a new sensitivity to what is going on in some churches. I would want to encourage a fresh awareness in the population that non-physical coercion and control is totally unacceptable, not only in families but in any other setting where it might occur.

Looking back over past decades, we realise how long it has taken for society to recognize that the existence of sexual abuse is a problem both for society and for the churches. This new awareness that abuse is something that happens not only in a sexual or violent context is now just beginning to dawn on many people. Our legal system is paving the way in encouraging us to be more aware of this reality. This blog, although read by only a tiny number of people, wants to push for an understanding that safeguarding must help the church to rid itself generally from the kind of controlling and coercive behaviour that the Langlois report has identified in one particular congregation. We may hope that the report will be read by all church leaders concerned with abuse. The safeguarding rules that have been hammered out over the past few years must keep up with the spirit of this new legislation. Christian leaders everywhere must, for example, outlaw behaviour which demoralises, demeans and humiliates people in the name of holy Scripture. Is it too much to ask that the church is ahead of public opinion in these areas rather than, as at present, limping along behind? The new criminalising of coercive and controlling behaviour in a domestic setting should be a beacon to help the church clean-up its act. Can we not be seen to anticipate future legislation by insisting now that spiritual abuse, the use of demeaning and humiliating forms of control, be outlawed now? Do we have to wait for society to pass laws to indicate that the kind of behaviour identified by John Langlois at Peniel is in fact not just immoral but criminal? We need greater awareness in our churches of the reality of abuse. Let us hope that it arrives soon!

Within the Old Testament there is one theological debate which is never resolved. The particular discussion I am referring to is in the so-called Wisdom literature and concerns God’s protection of the individual who trusts him. The Wisdom literature is found in some of the Psalms, the Book of Job, Ecclesiastes and the Wisdom of Solomon. The important issue that is of great concern is whether or not God can be relied upon to look after the person who lives a righteous life. Many passages seem to indicate a confidence that when a person keeps the Law, no evil will befall him. A typical passage from the Psalms expressing this conviction is the one that says: ‘the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous and his ears are open unto their prayers’. Another passage which says something similar is the one that says: ‘I was young and now am old and yet saw I never the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging their bread’. A confident trust that links goodness and the blessing of God on its practitioner is a strong theme in the various books of the Bible which together make up the Wisdom tradition. However this confidence and certainty in God’s blessing is radically questioned by the Book of Job. The modern commentators of this book suggest that the book should be read as a strong protest document against the calm confidence of those who want us to believe that personal goodness always results in God’s blessings for our life on this earth.

For myself I have no problem with the idea that the various authors of the Bible text sometimes disagreed with one another. The Wisdom literature thus never resolves the debate on this issue of whether a right-living person can avoid unexpected catastrophes. This question continues today. Is a Christian in some protected from suffering and distress? With Job we see how disasters and calamities affect one man who is held to be upright and good. It would be unrealistic to suggest that a Christian will experience life’s griefs and tragedies less than other people. Do we really think that wealth, success and health belong more to practising Christians than other people? No, the only difference that we might detect is that Christians are prepared to deal with their griefs and sorrows in a distinctive way.

A claim that Christians, people of faith, can somehow avoid disaster while at the same time enjoying material success and constant health is the promise that is the implied promise being made in some church environments. There are also churches that hold out a constant promise of miracles, which relate to financial, emotional or physical problems. ‘Come to our church’, the message goes, ‘and we will sort you out as long as you make a hefty donation to our finances!’ Having studied the Christian healing ministry over a number of years, I have no intention of suggesting that miracles never happen. They do, but seldom with the regularity that is often claimed for them. Inner transformations connected with forgiveness and a new relationship with the past do often occur for individuals in the context of church life. They are however not regular events by any means.

While discussing this issue, Chris reminded me of an episode in his past. When one of the church communities he belonged to proclaimed that miracles were taking place, he had to pretend that he had witnessed one of them. In fact no miracles were actually happening as far as he knew. I reflected with him whether his claim to have seen something constituted a lie in the normal meaning of the word. My own take on the situation was that Chris and others had been caught up in the enthusiasm of a church’s self-understanding. By ‘witnessing’ to a non-existent event Chris was simply caught up in a wish-fulfillment, a kind of group delusion created by the church’s own rhetoric. Because miracles ‘ought’ to happen there was a naïve belief that ‘witnessing’ and proclaiming such an event would somehow make them happen.

Claiming miracles when they do not happen does involves a form of dishonesty which is not dissimilar to claims that are made about a Christian’s relationship with Scripture. There are many people who feel obliged to collude with the belief that Scripture is accurate in every detail. If it seems to speak of historical events, then it must be understood in this way. Questioning this accuracy is thought to be like a ‘slippery slope’ towards atheism and loss of faith. Such a way of understanding Scripture does in fact create so many problems for the reader that he/she would probably be better off never opening up the text when alone. I could give numerous examples of the ways that a Bible passage, purporting to be history is impossible to understand as a statement of fact. To take one example, which will probably have caused problems for most of my readers, is the claim that the star followed by the wise men stopped over the place where the infant Jesus was to be found. Anybody who has spent any time in the open air when stars are shining must have wondered how any building could be marked out by a star. Logic, common sense and a healthy grasp of realism says that this passage cannot and should not be read in a literal way in order to understand its meaning. It is not a question of belief or disbelief in miracles, but simply the way language is used. Here it was never meant to be understood in a literal way even if the words appear to be a statement of fact.

This one trivial example of a passage which cannot meaningfully be read in a literal way, allows us to suggest that it is inappropriate to impose scientific-type truth on vast swathes of Scripture. If we try to do this, we find that we have an internal argument with a part of ourselves which may say that the literal meaning is often simply impossible. A dogmatic belief in the literal ‘truth’ of Scripture which we may be required to hold on to with our surface mind is thus in conflict with another part of our selves which is ruled by common sense and logic. The dogma of the group is in conflict with the thinking and conscience of the individual. I see in this clash something similar to what Chris was saying to me about miracles. At one level he was mouthing the narrative of the group while at the other level he knew that the group was indulging in an act of group deceit or hypocrisy.

One of the ways that conservative churches control their members is by insisting that each member adopts the approved group belief system. As I wrote about the issue of unity, I noted that this kind of unanimity can be false and indeed detrimental to the spiritual health of the members. By professing an identical belief to everyone else, a member of a conservative church may be indulging in a massive deceit. Human beings are all different and they will normally react differently to anything put before them. To pretend that it is a good thing in religious matters to be a clone, whether of a leader or a fellow member, undermines our true humanity and our uniqueness. I rejoice in the untidiness of the spiritual journey. There are massive differences to be found among us as well as many areas of convergence. Coming to a church with one’s uniqueness affirmed, allows one to converge into the experience of the whole in a healthy and positive way. We begin to glimpse a vision, once more, of journeying together with all our different histories and experiences intact. As I have suggested many times before, the image of the journey allows us to emphasise the importance of respect, humility and mutual support. As the hymn puts it: ‘we are pilgrims on a journey.’

Over the past few weeks followers of this blog will have noticed that I have gone very quiet over the events at Trinity Church Brentwood. The reason for this is, as I have just discovered, that Nigel Davies, the author of the Brentwood blog has been quite ill for around eight weeks. Thus the source of any information about the church simply dried up for this period of his illness. This silence was particularly galling after the flood of news in November. Nigel is now, thankfully, much better and more or less recovered from his pneumonia. Hopefully, the information on the church will begin to flow again.

Readers of this blog will remember that apart from the substantial report by John Langlois, there was a shorter one by two pentecostal ministers friendly to the church, Phil Hills and David Shearman. Having ‘sacked’ John Langlois and his commission back in August 2015, the church has tried to pretend that the 300 page document which John and his two commissioners produced in October does not exist. They were however forced to respond to the milder short report from David and Phil. In their response to this short report, the Trustees set out in December the way in which a special group was to be formed which would respond to the pastoral and other needs of abused ex- members of the church. This process is supposed to have now started. From recent comments on Nigel’s blog, there seems to be more than one opinion as to whether these attempts at reconciliation are indeed properly under way. Only time will tell whether such a reaching out by the church to apologise and to make amends for the past is being done with honesty and integrity or whether it is simply a political gesture to appease critics. The names of the group who are supposed to be doing this work have not yet been published.

Of far greater importance is the way in which the church responds or does not respond to the Langlois report. If the Trustees continue to try to pretend that it does not exist, then all their efforts to reach out to victims of past abuse may seem to be empty gestures. Whether the church likes it or not, the report will, I believe, gradually be read by everyone who has an ounce of independent thinking or curiosity. This particular elephant in the room is so large that it would seem almost impossible for anyone who takes a responsible role in the church now or in the future to be able to ignore it. Meanwhile it has been confirmed that Peter Linnecar has completely disappeared from the scene. This departure will have considerable ramifications for the dynamic of the church, particularly as a proportion of the congregation is related to him by blood or by marriage. It does not take a great deal of imagination to see that his absence may alter in unforeseen ways internal relationships within the church. In the short term it is reported that communication within the church is much improved after Peter’s departure. Peter had cultivated a certain mystique by being ‘too important’ for many individuals within the congregation. It is to be hoped that whoever follows him will want to be more pastorally ‘hands-on’. Most congregations prefer a warm accessible style of leadership and John Langlois pointed out in his report the long tradition in Peniel of the rich being cultivated and given privileges over the socially less powerful. Having had this particular cultural ‘style’ identified for them by the report, perhaps the Trustees will take note and try to avoid it in the future.

One particular issue which has emerged is the claim that the Langlois report contains a number of factual errors. These errors, whatever they are, are supposed to suggest that the whole report can be put to one side. This argument reminds me of conservative arguments about the Bible. You are not allowed to find a single error in Scripture for fear that if there is one thing wrong then the whole book is discredited. This argument is fallacious and an insult to common sense. Today I wrote a contribution to Nigel’s blog asking what these errors might be in John’s report. I pointed out that in the report, which I have read in detail, John repeatedly points out that all his conclusions were arrived at in the absence of any response from the leadership of Trinity Church. In other words he was taking testimony from those who had suffered in some way but he was not able to give another point of view or response from the Trinity leadership. The form of words that is used some 15 times in the report is as follows: ‘In the absence of responses from the present and former ministry/leaders/trustees of the church and subject to their responses to the members of the replacement commission we have come to the following conclusions’. It would seem that this statement with great humility builds into the report the possibility of error without in any way undermining its main thrust. John Langlois is clear that the sheer weight of testimony about abusive experiences suffered by so many at the church over many years, gives it plausibility and substance. I fail to see that any particular mistakes and errors that may have crept in are going to subvert the main thrust of the report.

Whether or not progress is made by the church in reaching out to former members who were victims of abusive behaviour, we can look forward to other developments which will take place on their own accord. To summarise, the first of these is the gradual extending of knowledge of the contents of the Langlois report to the congregation at large. This is bound to have an effect on the self-understanding of the congregation as it tries to help plot its path towards the future. The second radical change in the congregation comes as the result of the departure of the former pastor and his wife from the church. Significant changes are bound to take place within the congregation because of this. So much of the resistance to change and any reform seems to have been initiated from the top. When Nigel Davies was given a 30 minute audience with the Trustees in December 2014, Peter Linnecar personally prevented any of them asking any questions of Nigel. The strong authoritarian style which began with Michael Reid and continued with Peter L. was exercised not only over the congregation but also the Trustees. That is now gone and one can hopefully look for a different internal dynamic to emerge. If the church is to survive, and it is not clear at present whether this is a desirable aim, then it needs the Trustees to resist appointing a new pastor who will continue to exercise a similar authoritarian control. Unfortunately autocracy is frequently found in Pentecostal churches from where a new pastor might be chosen. The hope is that Trinity Brentwood will align itself to some denominational structure and, if this does happen, then there will be an oversight of the church by people who are not afraid to read and act on the Langlois report.

This bulletin on Trinity Brentwood is an indication that there is still much to unfold in the history of this church. It continues to be a focus of interest for this blog because so many of the issues around abuse, control and authoritarianism in churches occur in that congregation. I hope to keep returning to fill in my readers with whatever information I can glean from the other blog. I shall also not be afraid to add my own robust commentary to supplement this information.

Freedom is one of those words that everyone believes they understand. It also assumed that everyone is searching for freedom, particularly if they do not already possess it. Children, and particularly teenagers, are longing, we suppose, for the freedom of adulthood. People in a situation of slavery are also assumed to be striving for freedom above all else. The truth of the matter is in fact far more complicated. Many young adults far prefer to remain at home being fed and housed and generally looked after. Those released from slavery often find that the world of freedom is far more complex and anxiety-inducing than anything they knew before. Freedom brings about many choices and, if truth were told, people fear these choices. Some people will always prefer that life and all its complications be reduced to simply doing what other people tell them to do. The picture we have of every 18-year-old, desperately waiting to break free from family constraints, is only perhaps an idea of what we think should happen rather than the actual reality. Also the belief that every person in any kind of bondage wants to be released from their chains is also something which fits into the way that we would like them to be, rather than the way they in fact are.

From time to time I have reflected on the nature of addiction in our society. It takes many forms from cigarettes to alcohol, sex and drugs. Food is also a well-known comforter to help people cope with the choices and stresses of life. When one indulges in an addiction of choice, the addictive substance makes life seem far more under control. The highly stressed executive returning home from work may relax with alcohol. What he or she is doing is to escape from a world where they feel only partially in control. Alcohol gives them a predictable sense of well-being which helps them temporarily to blot out the choices, uncertainties and ambiguities of the working world. Most forms of addiction can also be understood to be a regression into the comfort and fantasy of being looked after and cared for by someone else. The addictive substance acts as a psychological crutch so that one can retreat from the unpredictable parts of life to something that is reliable and comforting – the child returning to the safety of a mother’s embrace.

One of the things that can be observed about the mass political movements of the 20th century is that, whether Communist or Fascist, they provided a way to relieve the stress of being a free individual, one with choices and decisions to make. The political movements, particularly as experienced in continental Europe between the wars, gave many people the experience of being in a large crowd. These crowds were all focused on a person or idea. While in the crowd the individual was relieved of having to think or feel for himself. It is no coincidence that Nazi Germany and Communist Russia appealed most especially to the young, young men in particular. This is the age group which goes through a period of anxiety as they move from the security of childhood to the time of decisions that being an adult normally involves. If there is someone or something to believe in which will resolve that anxiety, then it will be extremely popular. In short the mass ideologies of Germany and Russia in the 20 and 30s provided shortcuts to maturity for the mass of the population, albeit an utterly dysfunctional maturity. To be given a uniform by the Soviet or fascist state allowed the young man to feel adult without ever having to face up to the ambiguous and challenging freedom that such a stage would normally involve.

My reader may be wondering when I am going to reflect on the way that a fear of freedom is expressed in some aspects of Christianity. What I have to say here will not be popular with some, but I firmly believe that some presentations of Christianity have similarities to both the mass political movements of the 20th century and the current availability of many forms of addictive substance, legal or illegal. There is in fact a great deal in the New Testament about truth and freedom and the importance for the individual to take responsibility for his or her morality and choice of life. But the way the church presents itself sometimes leads us to conclude that the institution is colluding with people’s fear of freedom in the way that it peddles certainties and fixed answers that cannot be challenged. Many people see the church, not as providing a springboard for independent thinking and living, but as a place where people go to be submerged in a large group experience, not totally different from the mass political rallies of the 1930s. The music of these gatherings also helps to ‘soften’ people up to be part of a mass mind. Thinking and believing are here not the actions of individuals but this work is done on behalf of the whole by a small band of leaders. When people claim that they believe everything taught by a particular church or Christian leader, I see something profoundly regressive taking place. How is it ever possible in normal life to agree 100% with another person? And yet that is what is both claimed and believed to be possible in the context of a church. In a normal family one would expect that the 10-year-old child would begin to find areas of disagreement with his or her parents on various issues. By the age of 15 one would expect these divergences to be quite marked. Why is it that we expect everyone to agree with each other in the so-called church family? There is something quite unhealthy going on when this dynamic is at work.

Returning to our theme about the meaning of freedom, I am suggesting that this idea is far more difficult to live out and put into practice than would appear at first sight. Many people, including Christians, want to escape the demands of freedom and find a place and an ideology which makes them feel safe and included. While there is nothing wrong with wanting to belong, such ‘cosiness’ does need to be challenged from time to time. Any parent would want to tell their25-year-old offspring to find their own place rather than staying at home for ever. In the same way a church leader should want to encourage every member of his congregation to explore freedom rather than feel gratified that everyone wants to stay sitting at the foot of the pulpit in a dependent relationship. And yet the dynamic of many churches is one of creating and encouraging dependency, at the same time depriving people of the experience and challenge of finding a new freedom.

I cannot in this short piece explore fully what Christian freedom might actually look like. But I hope I have said enough to imply what the absence of this freedom appears to be. An absence of freedom in the Church can be seen in an over- dependency on particular experiences, words and individuals, This will be combined with a refusal to explore newness, paradox or the unexpected. To demand a freedom from freedom, as many Christians appear to do, is itself a kind of addiction. Somehow Christians have to own up how both in the past and in the present the church has colluded in this addiction. Living out a life of truth and freedom is hard work but this is the life in all its fullness to which Christ calls us.

Two news stories are given prominence today which are both of relevance to this blog. The first is the story of the Maoist cult and the way that a man, Balakrishnan, was able to control a group of women to do whatever he wanted. The second is the story of a British Muslim woman, Tareena Shakil, who went to Syria with her small child and then returned to Britain. She has now been tried and sent to prison for membership of ISIS.

The first story in many ways is richer for our purposes because it explores the depth of influence and control that a single person can exert over others. Also it is interesting that the Maoist leader was declared to have a narcissistic personality disorder as well as delusions of grandeur. We have discussed such personality defects as occasionally applying to religious leaders in many settings. No doubt we will return to the story but for today I want to speak about the second story, the British mother Tareena. Her story will allow me to focus particularly on my own feelings which are aroused by a story of religious abuse.

The narrative that is set out about Tareena and her infant son arouses in me a whole variety of feelings. No doubt these reactions are shared by other people. I want to look at these feelings because what is evoked in me is similar to the way I always feel when I am confronted with the actions and attitudes of people who are in thrall to extremist religious leaders. The first feeling, which I experience, is, as here, one of anger. The act of taking a young child into a war zone goes right against what we feel to be the act of a responsible parent. How could anybody endanger a child’s life or be so stupid as to think that this was a good environment in which to bring a child up? One’s sense of appropriateness and the protective instinct that one has for every small child is outraged. The anger one feels is also directed beyond the mother to the ideology that taught her to think in this way. There is a kind of rage inside one that is directed to anyone who exalts a cult of death and danger in preference to the normal human instinct to nurture and preserve life. This is even more true when it is the life of the helpless individual who has been entrusted to our personal care.

Having first felt a visceral sense of anger against the mother and her teachers, one then moves into a different stage, the stage of feeling profound sorrow and compassion for her situation. Her crazy perspective on life was probably made inevitable by the circumstances of her upbringing from childhood onwards. Her education was in all likelihood extremely poor, with little to protect her from the persuasive arguments of powerful individuals, particularly the men in her life. What chance does a woman in her situation have in resisting such powerful blandishments to think and feel in a particular way?

A sense of compassion for Tareena gives way to another feeling. I suspect that this third feeling is the one which is most typical in our society. It is a feeling of condescension mixed with contempt. What can be expected of this poor woman, brought up in ignorance? Most people, who have not tried to understand the influence of extreme religious groups, will be unable to experience the anger and the compassion which I have outlined above. They will bypass those stages and go straight to the uncomprehending condescension that seems to be the default mode among most people in our society. It is an attitude that completely fails to engage with the victims of religious extremism, of whatever kind. The vast swathes of the population cannot comprehend the results of extreme abusive religious doctrines, whether on the victims of such thinking or the perpetrators. This, sadly, would be true of people who attend many of our churches as well as those who are outside the influence of religious ideas.

It would be true to say that every time I meet someone who has been caught up in a religious group which makes them think and act in ways that go against their best interests, that I pass through all three of these feelings. I would like to think that I do not dwell on the third stage of condescension, maybe tinged with pity, for very long. I have nevertheless to admit that this is, or can be, the easy default option. No, I want to remain at the level of compassion for the victim’s plight and be able to use the anger I feel at the whole situation to give me energy to do something within my power to help. Opting for condescending pity would be a way of passing by on the other side of the road.

In our society there are hundreds of thousands of victims of religious and spiritual abuse of all kinds. There are many women trapped in abusive marriages which are reinforced by church teachings. Men are encouraged to exert their physical power over their wives and children because they have been told that the Bible condones such behaviour. Children submit to beatings and other harassment because of some verses in the book of Proverbs. Still more people live in environments of fear, unable to explore their individual personalities and creativity, because they believe that they must follow the will of a minister whom they believe holds the keys of heaven and hell. Our political leaders make a lot of noise about the Muslim treatment of women and children and no doubt many terrible things are done among these groups, hidden away from public scrutiny. But our society is still unable to comprehend the power of other religious groups, including the Christian, to commit or condone barbarities in the name of a holy book. This blog receives its energy from the anger felt at the existence of cruelty and abuse which are meted out in some dark places, even within our churches.

In this blog post I have identified within myself a trinity of feelings, anger, compassion and condescending pity. I am hoping that the first two of these feelings will always be the ones that predominate. I trust that when faced by religious abuse I can resist a slide into a condescension which so easily will turn into indifference. Sadly I fear that these first two feelings will always be those of a small minority. But I have the hope that those who read this blog will be among those who cultivate the capacity to feel anger and compassion in the face of spiritual abuse. It is from such feelings that comes the power to enable something to be done. The task before us is massive and may not be achievable in our lifetimes but we need to struggle to do what we can to confront it and maybe push it back just a little.

January 25 is the feast of the Conversion of St Paul in the Anglican calendar. It also marks the end of what is known as the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. This is a week when Christians of different denominations in Britain, and indeed throughout the world, are encouraged to meet in each other’s buildings and hold joint acts of worship. Thirty years ago, when I was more actively involved in ecumenical activities as an ecumenical officer for an Anglican diocese, this Week was celebrated with far more enthusiasm. Today ecumenical activity, bringing the churches together, seems to have lost much of its energy. In the diocese where I now live, the diocese of Carlisle, we are supposed to be linking the churches together by creating what are known as ‘mission communities’. This is a method for bringing together Anglican, Methodist and United Reformed congregations to work, worship and act together in particular geographical areas. The feed-back that I have been hearing suggests that all is not going well in this particular ecumenical initiative. Problems of working with other groups, which have a different tradition and a quite different history from one’s own, will always encounter difficulties. There are also practical issues in to be faced in churches working together, like finance, leadership and buildings. It is never going to be an easy task to weld together different groups, even if the very survival of the church may depend on clustering resources together in this way.

On Sunday I listened to a sermon on the topic of Christian unity. The Dean of the cathedral made the point that Christian unity is not the same as uniformity. This set me off on my own path of thinking about what can really be expected when we seek to be Christians ‘being in full accord and of one mind’ as Philippians 2.2 suggests. The models of unity which suggest that it might be possible to be of ‘one mind’ have a relevance in political life. Politics sometimes seems to indicate that it is important for everyone in a particular party to have an identical point of view as well as repeat the slogans that are put out by their leaders. Political unity thus always risks a descent into herd-like behaviour. Those of us who have read Animal Farm will remember the slogans that were a compulsory part of life on the farm. A sloganising form of unity is all too often repeated within church congregations. Strict compliance with the theology of the leaders and teachers is a mark of a true member in many conservative churches. I have often discussed in this blog the issue of how difficult it is to be a theological dissident in this kind of church. Is a congregation where everybody believes exactly the same things an example of Christian unity? In a political context, do we value the followers who shout the correct slogans or the dissidents who question the assumptions that have become the norm in the particular community? All too often this kind of mindless unity is based not on truth but on fear. The fear goes into two directions. First of all there is a fear of being expelled from the group because one’s thinking is not in accordance with the standard conventions. One also fears falling out of favour with the leadership who may be presenting a powerful coherent presentation of a political creed. In conservative Christian circles, the presentation of the expected orthodoxy will always claim to be based on a true and authentic reading of Scripture. We know, however, that in practice that there are as many ways of reading Scripture as there are Christian leaders. A unity of a kind may be found within a single congregation but in the wider orbit of evangelical organizations beyond the local, it is very hard to find more than superficial agreements among the leading teachers of particular churches and networks.

What might a practicable unity in a group actually look like? The best and most realistic example of a united group is the successful marriage. When two people come together in marriage, they create a psychological and emotional environment where each of them can support the other in becoming the people they are meant to be. Each partner within the marriage will not be expected to agree on everything with the other. We do not insist, for example, that each side in a marriage must vote for the same political party. What is important is that both sides respect the right of the other to have an opinion. Marriage, in other words, is an institution which allows the ‘dignity of difference’. This phenomenon of unity combined with tolerating difference is also implied in the Pauline description of the human body with its many parts. I would love to be able to say that we find a similar respect for the beliefs of others at work among the churches. For this to be possible there would first of all be involved a general acknowledgement that there is no such thing as a single version of propositional truth. In other words Christians would have to start handling the idea that there is more than one way of talking about the things of God. The problem in this is that there are simply too many Christians at present wedded to the idea that there is only one correct way of reading the Bible and understanding its message. Other interpretations exist but many congregations still retain the fantasy that their church, their leader, alone is able to determine the path to salvation and God’s truth. It goes without saying that such a belief in any congregation is for me a sheer fantasy. To put it another way, it is a total nonsense to suppose that any particular chapel or even network of congregations are able to contain the entirety of truth about God and spirituality. Holding on to such a belief will also distort an ability to learn and grow in spiritual depth. If you have the ‘truth’ now, there is nothing new to learn. How can the Spirit be at work leading you into all truth if you already acquired it years ago?

If the analogy of a good marriage is a realistic description of the right kind of unity we should look for in the church, then it follows that Christian unity will always be about respect and the constant new discoveries of the truths that are held by other people. When we meet Christians who speak a different theological language from us, our reaction should be, not how do these people fall short of our definitions, but what can we learn through a patient listening to their history and to their experience? I have referred in the past to my privilege in learning about Christianity through the eyes of a quite different culture, the Greek one. I have also learnt that prayer in other languages has a quite different feel to it and I particularly enjoy hearing prayers read in French. This blog has always wanted to stand up for the claim that truth is not something we can ever possess, but only something to which we can aspire. The task of Christian unity is a call, not to put up barriers to protect our definitions of truth, but an invitation to go out beyond our traditions to learn from others. In this way, the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity could be a path to a greater, more complete vision of who God is and what he wishes for his people. I believe that it was General Smuts who coined the expression that ‘the whole is greater than the sum of the parts’. He was not talking here about theology, but his statement could well be applied to a vision of God. God is and always will be beyond what we already know.

Many of us watched with fascination as the Anglican Communion seemed to be on a course towards self-destruction last week. The communiqué which was published last Friday does not really make clear what was finally agreed upon by the Anglican primates. The conservative group (the majority of the archbishops) among them certainly felt that they had won a moral victory over the Episcopal Church in the United States. The TEC, as it is commonly known, has been deprived of a place on some of the central Anglican decision-making bodies for three years. Commentators who understand the legal structures of the Anglican Church have announced that the Anglican archbishops have no authority to make such a decision. A different body altogether, the Anglican Consultative Council, is the only one to be able to make any decisions on behalf of the whole Communion. The argument will go on and on and the defeat of the so-called Covenant Proposals in 2012 has made the situation even more muddled and confused. I cannot again rehearse what was being proposed in the so-called Covenant Proposals, but when it was defeated by most of the Church of England dioceses, it was understood to be a defeat for any disciplining structures being wielded by those at the centre of the Anglican Communion. The sanctioning or rebuking of fellow-Anglicans in America should not be something that Anglican archbishops can do or should even want to do.

What we are left with, after the gathering of last week, is a stark reminder that for some Anglicans, especially those in Africa, the gay issue is almost the most important topic to be discussed and debated. It seems to take greater prominence than political corruption, poverty, global warming or economic development. The Anglican churches, particularly those in central Africa, appear to believe that a gay epidemic is being exported from the West, one which will undermine and even destroy families and the morality of their young people. It is as though an infectious virus has been released and this has to be resisted by every spiritual weapon and these include a grasping on to a fiercely conservative creed. This message of corrupt gays seeking to take over the world is what is being peddled by a group of American conservative evangelists who have access to the highest levels of church and government in countries such as Uganda. When particular celebrity preachers such as Scott Lively and Rick Warren speak about this gay conspiracy, many people in Africa listen. The preachers are treated as though they are experts in the field. This cluster of preachers are attached to an American organization called the New Apostolic Reformation. The organization is an unaccountable group with no denominational ties. It links back to the teaching of Peter Wagner, an influential figure in the neo-charismatic scene. His emphasis has always focused on the importance of a form of theocracy, God being in charge, crushing the demons and other forces arrayed against him. This also fits well with the rhetoric of the Christian Right as they battle to take ascendency in the Republican party. What these representatives of the NAR have to say is unfortunately the only Christian presentation on the topic of sex to be heard at present. There is no other message being heard. No doubt any attempt to suggest that there was another narrative which favoured understanding and support for gay and transsexual individuals, would be met by the cry that this was further proof of a gay conspiracy being peddled by the West. One of the myths being peddled in Uganda in 2008 was that young people were being bribed into homosexual behaviour by individuals from the West. A typical claim from Scott Lively was that, gay sexuality was equivalent to child molestation. It was against the background of this kind of misinformation that the anti-homosexual bill was introduced into the Ugandan parliament in April 2009. Lively had been visiting Uganda regularly since 2002, making alliances with Ugandan pastors who through him had been initiated into a rabid hostility towards the gay lifestyle. Many Ugandans responded to the thought that their own children were threatened by visiting gay men and they have become an eager audience up for all the myths being presented to them by these evangelists from the United States.

The idea that homosexuality is a western export to African nations is a convenient myth to be sold to both political and religious leaders in Africa. These leaders are thus, unwittingly, being manipulated by the American Christian and political Right. For African leaders a struggle against gay sex is made out to be a continuation of the old struggle against colonial values. So a persecution of gay individuals becomes a mark of someone who wishes to uphold African traditional culture. The question as to whether gay sex has any place in traditional African society is never addressed but those who study the problem have declared categorically that, at the very least, there has never been evidence of violence against such groups. Same-sex behavior, as in the West, is only practised by a minority in African societies, but there appears always to have been an acceptance that this is the way for some. We can claim that the current obsession with and fierce opposition to gay lifestyles among Africans can be traced back to America. It suits political and religious factions in the States to conduct their wars, their culture and religious wars, in another continent. The liberal majorities in the United States have increasingly turned their backs on the fanatical bigoted behaviour by thinkers on the Christian Right. Supporters of such ideas have had to seek to gain victories in other places, places where influence can be obtained by a combination of bribery, misinformation and outright distortion of truth.

I believe I wrote a piece about the real motivation of right-wing conservative thinkers in the States in their firm opposition to any tolerance towards gay people. I need to summarise what I said before. These ideas are not my own but I found them in a book by a left-wing political commentator, George Lakoff. His observation about the great division in the States between Republicans and Democrats is that the former had been brought up in very conventional families, with the father enforcing obedience over his wife and children. The pattern of family life in which they had been reared would have stressed control and obedience. The upbringing of the children of the family was against the background of a Calvinist belief in the inherent evil of a child outside the structure of firm control. In other words strong paternal authority in the family was necessary to eliminate the evil of self. The other pattern, exemplified by the liberal Democratic understanding of family life, stressed the importance of communication and openness. Here the father was no longer seen as the enforcer and controller but there was an assumption that love would allow proper growth and flourishing. The problem for the Christian Right is that homosexuality subverts the old authoritarian pattern in the traditional family. How can there be two fathers or two mothers in the family? Gay sex for the conservatively-reared Christian strikes at the heart of what is understood to be the norm of family life. To change that was to cast doubt on the way things had been from the beginning of life. It is no surprise that the conservative thinker has clung on to his/her opposition of gay sexuality to the point of create hatred and violence, not only in their own society but across the world.

Over the years I have had more than a passing interest in church architecture. One of the interesting things is to interpret why churches are built and furnished in different ways. There are of course, major differences between churches built in the eastern Mediterranean and those which have been designed in the West. One obvious feature in Eastern Orthodox churches which is different from what we are used to, is the way that there is almost a complete absence of windows in such buildings. In many cases the walls are filled with paintings or mosaics, and the only way we can see them is from the light that comes from artificial light, especially candles. The interaction between flickering candles and mosaics is fairly magical, and we would add mysterious. This sense of mystery, a participation in the unknown, is exactly what Eastern architect wanted to evoke in the worshippers.

In the western half of Christendom we observe a major transition between the mediaeval period and what came later. In some churches of the Reformation that wanted to downplay the prominence that had been given to the old Roman rite or the Mass, there was an emphasis on the pulpit and thus it was situated in a place of prominence at the centre of the building. The reading and the preaching about the Word of God were clearly the most important activities in church buildings of this tradition. Most of the churches in the Anglican tradition still gave a prominence to the altar and it was and is important for traditional Anglican worship that this structure should be visible from every part of the building. But even here, elaborate and intrusive pulpits were frequently constructed in the 18th century to emphasise the place of preaching in these buildings. Most of these were however, swept away by the Victorians. In most Anglican churches we now have forward facing pews so that there is once more a focus on the altar and the communion services that took place there.

Today in some churches there is a new architectural phenomenon to be seen. This is the raising of a stage construction at the front of the church. The purpose of this is not for the preaching of the word or the reading of the Bible but it is to give a platform for new servants of the church, the music group. The churches where services can last for over two hours, at least half of that time is spent in listening to this music group performing, or perhaps accompanying congregational singing. This music, to judge by the amount of time spent on its performance, has become the most important feature of worship in many modern churches. From the perspective of view of a traditional leader of worship such as myself, I have to ask the question as to whether such musical performance is entertainment rather than real worship. Are people coming to church, at least on occasion, simply to be entertained? Are worshippers turning into an audience? This is a valid question which I feel we need to consider. If I am right, then there has been a devaluation of the activity of worship.

What is worship? This is a question we have to address in order to give a measured response to our questions. Most traditional answers to this question would be to see worship as what the people of God bring as their offering to him. The emphasis is here, not on what we receive in church, but on what we can give. Traditional liturgical words like offertory and thanksgiving imply that the people in a congregation are expected to do something, to put an effort into this activity of worship. The traditional procession of the elements of bread and wine together with the envelopes containing financial gifts represent an important symbolism at the heart of worship. We can sum up the whole movement of the service by saying that worship is what we come to give of ourselves to God so that he can give himself to us in the form of consecrated bread and wine. This initial giving of ourselves makes possible the receiving of the gift of Christ so that ‘we can dwell in him and he in us’.

From the perspective of this kind of theology, there is something very superficial and inadequate about an endless succession of Christian songs being performed on a stage. Even if this kind of music is agreeable to a worshipper, and often it is not, it is hard to see how listening even to a semi-professional band is spiritually edifying. If in fact listening to this music is mainly to be regarded as entertainment, it is difficult to see how it becomes any kind of offering to God. It could of course be argued that the offerings of professional cathedral choirs are also forms of entertainment, but there are some major differences. Most composers of such liturgical music, such as Palestrina or Bach, have a very strong sense of the meaning of the words that they set to music. In other words each composer is interpreting a traditional liturgical text and giving it a distinct musical form. The words of the liturgy, in summary, are given a musical interpretation which heightens their meaning and impact on those who listen. Words and music achieve a harmony which can enrich the worshipper and become part of their offering to God.

To return to my title and question about worship. Are congregations sometimes becoming more like audiences and consumers of something that is being performed on a stage? Is the act of worship becoming closer to an attendance at the theatre? If entertainment were to become the dominant emphasis experienced by congregations, then we would be moving away from the old notion that we go to church to make our offering of praise and thanksgiving. When we say the traditional words ‘it is meet and right, our duty and our joy in every place and at all times to give you thanks O God’, we are saying something quite different from ‘I go to church because I enjoy listening to a musical performance’. Perhaps the next time we go to a church we need to look around at the architecture. The placing of a stage at the front of a church building may speak to us as powerfully as the positioning of the altar or the pulpit in the past. Is the church architecture encouraging us to think of ourselves as consumers of musical entertainment or are we being called to give thanks and offer ourselves in the worship of Almighty God?

In looking back over my many reflections on the uses of abuse in a church, we nearly always seem to come back to one place. Abuse, more often than not, seems to involve evoking fear in an individual. Whenever a person is frightened, for whatever reason, they can usually be compelled to do whatever the fear-monger requires. In summary, to frighten a person is the simplest way to control them. As I have often said the greatest thing to be feared among many conservative Christians is the threat of being consigned to eternal damnation. Anyone who has been persuaded to believe in this state of everlasting torture when they become Christians will do absolutely anything to avoid it. Sometimes in the process of avoiding hell and damnation their earthly lives are blighted irreparably by the miasma of fear that permeates their awareness.

When I contrast a stirring up of deep fears and dread about eternal punishment with the actual teachings of Jesus, I see an enormous divergence. Jesus had no interest in making people frightened and most of his condemnatory words were directed at the false and hypocritical teachers of his day. His central message was far more one of encouragement, how to discover the potential of life when lived within an awareness of God’s gracious love. I have often quoted the passage from St John which talks about the purpose of Jesus’s ministry, ‘that they may have life, life in all its abundance’. To quote this passage is not taking one saying out of context because we can see how it fits into the main thrust of Jesus’s other words and actions. We could summarise the ministry of Jesus as being one of removing the impediments to wholeness that existed in peoples’ lives. The healing ministry of Jesus is not only a battle against pain, but it is more importantly a way of helping people to find their full place within their faith community as well as their society. Sin is identified, not because it leads to hell, but because it represents another kind of failure to flourish as a full human being. When I read the parables I note a great deal about people searching and finding something new and exciting. The woman sweeping her house to find lost silver, or the man selling everything to buy the field with treasure inside it. Jesus seems to have been appealing, not to our defensive fearful selves, but to the hopeful and adventurous aspects of our personalities. He invites us to come with him on an adventure, and adventure towards a life lived in all its fullness.

Today, as I mentioned in my previous blog post, the gathering of Anglican primates begins in Canterbury. From my perspective I see one group who are in touch with the adventurous, transformative side of Christianity. Another group seemed to be tapping in to a version of the faith which is only concerned with self-protection, fear and the avoidance of terror. No doubt the conservative group experienceS some of the rewards of God’s blessings but one can’t help but feel that they have become obsessed with creating a system which in many ways has the potential to close people down. The countries of Africa are facing enormous problems, economic, social and providing adequate healthcare for millions. We also see massive problems of reconciling different tribes, different religions and facing up to the results of decades of corruption in government. In the midst of all this, the African archbishops choose to spend an enormous amount of energy on upholding a particular sexual ethic, one which has no impact on the wider society. Something is very wrong when this kind of situation arises.

The way that we can move from a fear-filled Christianity to one of hope is, I believe, to embrace the invitation of Jesus to move towards a love filled way of life. We can, for a start, believe in a God who invites us to share his fullness and his holiness without making us feel as though we are worth nothing in his sight. To judge from the comments of Jesus, we have every good reason to believe that God sees the good in us before he sees the ways that we fail. God is far more interested in encouraging the positive than in condemning the negative. Of course all of us fail, of course all of us do not live up to our potential. But I think that we can believe that God wants to bless us far more than he wants to condemn us. So much of Christianity feels like a headmaster’s study when the pupils queue up to receive their punishments. No, the Christianity I want to embrace and also communicate is a faith that constantly draws me out of myself to glimpse a fuller, wider and broader way of living and being.

This week we will see whether a part of the Anglican Communion decides to walk away in the name of what I believe to be a narrow, legalistic and claustrophobic expression of faith. If that happens it will be an occasion of regret, but the remaining part of the Communion, must then try to live out its own understanding of what it means to see the faith as a life affirming and life embracing creed. As far as I am concerned, Jesus came to invite people to see what life can be when it is lived in openness and love towards others and to God. The greatest sin is not that of sexual deviance, but a failure to live life as it is meant to be lived. A full life will include rich experiences, aesthetic, emotional and intellectual. But the same life will also involve feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and visiting prisoners. Our modern obsession with sex does not seem to have entered the minds of Jesus or his disciples. If we remain with the gospels, we find Jesus encouraging us to live in new transformative ways. It is in exploring those new ways that makes the Christian faith constantly exciting and new. We travel in the path that Christ set before us but we never actually arrive.

Today I am looking at an area of abuse which many Christians have so internalized that they no longer see it as a problem. This particular abuse is found in the capacity of some Christians to be supremely confident in what they believe and in what they interpret as being God’s will. From this position they are ready and able to denigrate and attack other Christians who do not agree with them. The logic runs along these lines. My interpretation of Scripture and what I believe is the only correct and valid way of being a true Christian. Therefore if you do not agree with me, you must be resisted and opposed on every occasion. Your beliefs are dangerous since they pose a threat to vulnerable people who might be led astray by what you are saying. Taken to its extreme, exclusivity in belief gives some Christian the right to threaten and even destroy others because they, the opposition, believe and teach things that have the potential to send people to hell.

In our Western societies, exclusive beliefs do not, happily, result in Christians killing each other. Civil society, the laws and the courts insist that no belief system is permitted to allow religious people to fight or kill each other because of their claim alone to have the ultimate truth. But we do see this kind of behaviour in other parts of the world which operate with other religious systems. Sunni and Shias battle it out, with each claiming with great fervency that they possess the correct interpretation of their Prophet’s teaching. Holding the truth of their faith is for many indeed a matter of life and death. Having ‘the’ truth while excluding those of other persuasions will from time to time justify the killing of others who are not in their ‘tribe’.

In the next few days Anglican leaders are gathering to discuss the question of truth and unity in the Communion. In that debate we will no doubt hear more of the hard edged arguments from the conservative faction based mainly in Africa, South America and parts of Australia. The conservative Archbishops claim that they know and uphold the will of God in the issue over whether gays can marry. Because they are certain that, according to God’s revealed will, this is impossible, they feel they have to uphold this teaching because it affects the fate of millions of souls after death. It is for them a heaven/hell issue. If it were not, then perhaps they could seek a formula to enable them to live together with those who think differently. But the nature of their understanding of Scripture means that compromise is not permitted. The hard edge of excluding those who do not agree with them is for them the proper orthodox face of Christianity.

The liberal thinkers among us, who long for some kind of theological compromise to be possible in the Anglican Communion, are aware of many historical factors that have created this impasse. This is not the time however to rehearse how we have arrived at this place where an irresistible force is confronting an immovable object. What we can do in this post is to reflect how Jesus dealt with divisions and disputes that were going on around him. In his day there were many debates about how much of the observance of the law was mandatory to be a Jew in good standing. Jesus himself was criticised for allowing his disciples to break the strict interpretation of the Sabbath regulations in extracting grains from the ripening wheat as they crossed a field. There were well over 600 commands extracted from the Jewish Law Books and these were believed to be compulsory for a law-abiding Jew. As we know, it was only possible for wealthy unemployed Pharisees to even attempt this daunting task of obeying every law. Jesus in his discussions with the Scribes and Pharisees seems to have taken a fairly relaxed attitude over the matter of keeping the Law in every detail. We have no reason to doubt the tradition that has Jesus quoting the Deuteronomy summary that the Law is summed up in two commands, the love of God and of neighbour. It also makes historical sense of the events leading up to the crucifixion to suggest that it was important for the Jewish establishment to crush a teacher who tolerated a radical reinterpretation of the Law. This interpretation had resulted in Jesus feeling able to eat and drink with those the Law excluded, the tax gatherers and sinners.

One interpretation of the crucifixion is to say that Jesus is the friend of those who defy the human tendency to exclude and create divisions in the name of ‘truth’. Jesus was killed because he sought peace (shalom), forgiveness and reconciliation between humankind and God and the breaking down of every kind of human barrier. Reconciliation and peace are lived experiences and they do not readily translate well into words. This repeats a theme that I often spell out in these posts, that the search for truth goes far beyond correct words and formulae. God is never to be reduced to a series of propositions or statements.

What do we ask of those Christians who exclude and even hate others for not agreeing with their hard and exclusive understandings of Scripture? What we ask of them is not to change their minds, but simply to allow those who disagree with them the right and the space to exist. We ask from them the capacity to imagine that God is not confined to a single version of truth but allows people in different times and places to encounter him in a variety of ways. Thanks to the (liberal) laws of the West, Christians are allowed to live in peace with other Christians. The unacceptable face of hate and exclusion nevertheless still lurks just below the surface. The logic of John Calvin, whose theocracy in Geneva allowed Michael Servetus to be burnt at the stake so as to preserve Christian truth, is still to be found in some of our churches today. People are no longer killed, but some of the venom that used to inspire such killing is still to be found, regrettably, in the tone of the discussions like those among the Anglican bishops gathering in Britain this month. What divides us is the readiness of some Christians always to exclude those who do not agree with their version of truth and understanding of faith. Excluding others has become a mark of their version of orthodoxy. That surely is not the way of Jesus.