Mike Pilavachi: The Elephant in the Room

by Augustine Tanner-Ihm and Jonny Masters. Augustine is Team Curate at St James & Emmanuel, Didsbury, Manchester and winner of the 2020 Theology Slam: Jonny works to ensure the voices of young people shape decision-making in the charity sector and is married to Alex, his husband.

Jonny Masters begins with a personal reflection:

I imagine Mike Pilavachi would make a self-deprecating joke about the title of this article, and then belittle someone else in an even more severe way, back when he was front and centre at Soul Survivor festivals. I’d probably have laughed.

When I think back and remember laughing at Mike’s insults to other leaders on stage at Soul Survivor my soul curdles a little inside. Was I complicit in long-lasting abusive behaviour? 

Lord, have mercy.

The situation regarding Mike Pilavachi has been widely discussed in Christian media and by the evangelical Christian community on Twitter/ X. The impact of Mike’s actions, first reported by The Telegraph last year, has rippled deeply in the hearts of those who had previously felt positive about his ministry. Now, tainted by confirmed allegations of sustained abusive behaviour, many Christians have been questioning their experiences of the Holy Spirit at Soul Survivor Watford, and Soul Survivor festivals. Youthscape have written an excellent article for youth workers to process the situation. It is also full of wisdom for others indirectly impacted by Mike’s actions. Premier Christianity have released a great podcast investigating Mike’s actions. However, in all the discussion and conversation (though at the time of writing not all podcast episodes have yet been released), the condemnation and the concern, there has been a silent elephant in the room.

Sexuality.

Mike’s actions, particularly massages, have a sexual edge to them. We need to acknowledge this as a Church. A well-respected Christian man spent time massaging young men, sometimes on his own bed. This caused immense harm to young Christians who had taken time and space to serve God. Could our overwhelming silence of decades regarding sexuality be bearing rotten fruit? Could the way we treat LGBTQ+ people be causing harm? Could our interpretation of Scripture be harmful? We would suggest yes, yes, and yes. The silence surrounding homosexuality and the wider LGBTQ+ community that has lasted decades in most evangelical churches has echoed profoundly in the conversations surrounding Mike’s actions. Yes, Mike’s controlling behaviour has been roundly condemned, celebrity culture in the church has been critiqued, but we have seen very few people raising their hands (or should that be heads above the parapet?) to ask how silence around sexuality could lead to such actions.

It seems like Mike found a line that he would not cross and went as close to it as he could. Mike’s moral compass, informed by the evangelical charismatic Church, allowed his actions to go as far as they did, but no further. Mike’s understanding of morality in relation to sexuality consisted of clear, boundaried, actions. The boundary was sex. As far as we know, Mike committed no overtly sexual acts with another person. However, the pattern of intimate physical contact with young males raises the question of whether the acts he did commit may have offered some form of sexual gratification.

Mike’s behaviour is considered abusive and has led to disciplinary measures. How can a well-respected, celebrated, man of faith go so far wrong?

Silence. That would be the short answer. Let’s explore what we mean by that.

The evangelical wing of the Church has not wrestled adequately with the question of human sexuality. It has placed it in a box. Mike, trapped in the box, banged loudly on the sides of the box and caused himself and those he loves considerable harm. Perhaps we need to think about human sexuality differently. Excuse the pun, but we need to think outside the box.

When we look at the broader implications of conservative culture and its handling of sexuality, it’s essential to consider the wider context in which figures like Huw Edwards, Phillip Schofield, Mike Bickle, Mark Bailey, and Revd Mike Breen operate or have operated. It’s critical to clarify that the specific “downfall” or scandalous behaviour attributed to these individuals varies greatly, and in some cases, public allegations or confirmations of misconduct might not exist. Therefore, discussing their personal faith, alleged scandals, or impacts without verified evidence could be misleading and potentially harmful. Instead, the discussion will pivot towards the systemic issues within certain evangelical communities that have broader implications.

The conservative purity and evangelical culture, noted for its often-stringent views on sexuality, has had profound effects on individuals within these communities. These views are often implicit and rarely spoken about or open to challenge. This culture, which sometimes harbours dangerous homophobic theology, can create environments where individuals feel compelled to suppress their true selves. This suppression can lead to significant psychological distress, strained relationships, and in some tragic cases, self-harm or suicide.

This culture of silence seems to have spread because the church is not talking about a very important thing; the behaviour of Church leaders whose sexuality is not admitted because it does not conform to the ideal they are promoting. Mike Pilavachi is a man who has attempted to follow Christ and listen to His Spirit for many years. Thousands of young people have come to know Jesus Christ because of his ministry. But sadly, many people were harmed during his ministry too. His controlling and coercive behaviour played a large part in this. However, the reluctance of the wider church to challenge the potentially toxic theology he believed and preached regarding sexuality also needs to be considered. Many of our charismatic evangelical churches, organizations and groups, have ignored the elephant in the room. A wise question to ask would be, “Did we as a community enable Mike to do this to young men because of the potentially toxic theology we have preached or sometimes chose not to engage with?”

The theology often preached within some conservative evangelical circles advocates for a strict adherence to traditional gender roles and sexual abstinence outside of heterosexual marriage. This approach can lead to harmful practices such as conversion therapy, which has been widely discredited and condemned by medical and psychological associations worldwide for causing significant harm to LGBTQ+ individuals. The Church of England has also condemned the practice of conversion therapy.

Conservative evangelical environments can also be fertile ground for abusive behaviours to be masked or excused under the guise of spiritual authority or correction. When leaders or influential figures within these communities fall from grace, it often prompts a period of reflection and questioning among their followers. However, the systemic issues that enabled such falls remain entrenched and difficult to address without a fundamental shift in theology and practice.

Quotes from individuals who have experienced harm from these cultures often speak to the profound sense of betrayal and loss. They may have felt a deep connection to their faith and community, only to find themselves ostracized or harmed when their true selves were revealed or when they questioned the status quo.

The path forward requires a re-evaluation of the teachings and practices that have led to such harm. It calls for a theology that embraces love and acceptance over judgment and exclusion. It is a theology which allows Christians to be open and honest with one another. There is no shame in mistakes – that is the joy of the gospel because of Jesus Christ. This shift is not just about preventing the “downfall” of prominent figures but about creating a faith community that uplifts and supports all its members, regardless of their sexuality or gender identity.

In conclusion, while individual scandals may capture public attention, the deeper issue lies in the theological and cultural practices that contribute to systemic harm. Addressing these issues requires courageous conversations, openness to theological thinking, and a commitment to love and respect as core principles of faith.

It’s time to address the elephant in the room.

Posted in Human Sexuality, Safeguarding, Sexual abuse | Tagged , , , , | 5 Comments

Mini-MBA Talent Pipeline Group, Module Seven: Managing Synods

by Anon.

Memo

Following the recent updated modules on marketing and strategy, and then on safeguarding, a number of you have written in to request that we bring forward the module on Managing Synods. Apparently there has been some alarm at recent meetings of General Synod, with reports coming in of hitherto composed people on the podium looking uncomfortable, and some even appearing to look downright shifty. Some of you have also – and we thank you for this – pointed out that the clergy and laity should not be given opportunity to ask difficult questions, raise awkward issues, or otherwise disrupt the smooth flow and seamless webs of meanings being spun from behind those sitting in the front row (bravely facing the firing line).

At this stage, we judge the mood of General Synod to be no more than a level-3 “disconcerting”, which is well down from the level-6 “ugly train crash” of July 2023. There remains the possibility of a full-on revolt, or perhaps the slow handclap delivered to Prime Minister Blair at the Wembley Arena by the Women’s Institute, almost 25 years ago.

Were that to happen to the Archbishops, please don’t worry: pre-emptive measures are already in place to restore the appearance of order. Specifically, in the event of a slow handclap at Synod or similar disruptive revolutionary acts of misconduct, you may like to know that both Archbishops would:

  1. leave the podium at that point, and join Synod members in their protest at the appalling conduct of those seated on the podium.
  2. lead Synod, from the floor, facing those responsible seated on the podium, in an act of quiet and silent reflective prayer-protest, and also pin ribbons and messages to any LOUDFence erected.
  3. make it clear that the Archbishops always stood with victims against the powers of oppression, so of course they are standing with those on the floor of Synod who believe that they now represent the dispossessed, and are being robbed of any proper democratic processes.
  4. Immediately issue a press release stating how much sadness and frustration the Archbishops share with the protesters. (NB: we do not quantify what is meant by “how much” in such gestures – enough to make a PR impact on the day and grab some headlines, naturally; but not enough to make any difference in the future, obviously).

The drama thus concluded, Synod can return to business as usual, with the scripted motions, appropriate redactions, normal censorship and other attention to detail contained in the paper GS 101 (entitled “Ensuring Appropriate Scrutiny at General Synod” – but not a public document available for members to consult).

It will be apparent to everyone in the Talent Pipeline that the Secretary-General of the General Synod, who is also the Secretary of the Archbishops’ Council, the CEO of Church House, Lambeth Palace and the remainder of the Church of England, cannot, de facto, have a conflict of interest in any matter under discussion. Like the reigning monarch, or perhaps a President for Life in some distant micro-state that once rashly flirted with democracy and other modern innovations such as an independent judiciary, the Secretary-General cannot do anything about the role and position he finds himself in.

He did not create this system. He must just inhabit the role as humbly as possible. He rules by the Grace of God and the Consent of the People. Alone. But with the backing of Lambeth Palace lawyers and PR officers also around to help, and a Dark-Ops team who work off the grid, and can remove staff in the blink of an eye.

However, Talent-Pipeline attendees enrolled on the Mini-MBA module are invited to take a step back from General Synod, and assess it as a whole. The take-homes should be obvious, but in case you cannot spot what is hiding in plain sight, we list a few of the lessons to take away. Watch and learn!

  1. The role of the Secretary General. The Secretary-General never speaks at Synod, yet controls everything that goes on. Like a monarch or some reclusive Japanese Emperor, he rules through force of law, silence and conducting all the real business in toto behind the curtains (Ed: ah, a veiled reference to the Wizard of Oz and Dorothy’s dog? Sec. Gen.: Take this as your first warning).
  2. Voting. Remember, democracy is never one-person-one-vote. You might learn that kind of idealism at Primary School, but General Synod is Real World Politics, my friend. On the floor of Synod, the following rules apply:

a) The purpose of voting is always to get the right result. The right result is the result required before the voting was allowed to happen in the first place.

b) Voting is tedious, annoying and time-consuming, as we already know what we want to do, so the only question is how to achieve the correct outcome if people still insist on voting.

c) Some voting is done by clergy/laity/bishops’ houses, and the lawyers decide which, on advice from the Sec. Gen., sitting behind. The lawyers answer to the Sec. Gen. The Sec. Gen. answers to nobody, symbolised by his silence (Ed: You mean his refusal to speak or listen? Sec. Gen.: Second warning, seriously).

d) If in doubt, call a Tea Break, then 10 minutes later ring the Division Bell very quietly (so as not to interrupt the fellowship over a cuppa).

e) It is unclear if abstentions count as votes against, don’t count at all, or can be used as votes not counted in favour. The Sec. Gen. will advise the lawyers on what answer to give, depending on the issue up for debate. For example, if 100 people can vote on same-sex blessings, and fifty vote in favour, that is only 50%, so a fail. If 25 people abstain, and 25 vote against, you might think that 2/3 of the votes cast were in favour. But, duh! The ‘ayes’ only got half the votes. If, however, the same voting patterns were repeated for approving new mission communities to replace tiresome parishes, then the mind of Synod is clearly 2/3 in favour, with only 25% unable to make up their mind, and 25% against. Simple.

f) Unclear? Good. This is why you need the lawyers on the podium, and experts like the Sec. Gen, to safely guide you through such labyrinths. Thank God democracy is in such safe hands (Sec. Gen.: You are now on your final warning. Don’t even think it).

  1. The agenda. Try to be imaginative about how you use Synod time. Remember, the more time you spend on launching initiatives and making presentations, the more it looks like you have a fresh and urgent energy about you, and are someone who is willing to try something new. It also means there is less time to dwell on difficult topics like money, income, statistics, morale, the mental health of clergy, etc – which just gets everyone down. You need to keep away from that sort of stuff, as people might hold you to account.

Schedule business right at the end of the day, when everyone wants to go home or has already started drifting off. Or, schedule it just before lunch, as people need a loo-break by then. Or better still, put it right at the start of day, as it implies there is nothing to see here, and “there will be much more substantial things for Synod to be discussing later”.

If you have passed this module, trust me, there won’t be.

 

 

Posted in General Synod, Governance | 3 Comments

The Bishops must be Bolder and Braver on Gaza

by Dr Jonathan Chaplin, a Fellow of Wesley House, Cambridge and a lay member of Ely Diocesan Synod*

Two weeks ago, Archbishop Welby reversed his earlier refusal to meet prominent Palestinian Christian leader, Revd Dr Munther Isaac, on account of the fact that Isaac had shared a platform with Jeremy Corbyn at a pro-Palestinian rally in London. For the first time, he also used the word ‘condemn’ of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza. These are important steps in a much-needed rebalancing of the Church of England’s official stances on the Gazan catastrophe.

But there is more to do. Since October, the House of Bishops has issued three statements on the war, most recently in February. Coming from the appointed teachers of the established Church, they deserve a respect which must include critical scrutiny. Many elements of these statements are commendable, but they fall short on two fundamental counts.

First, while the bishops eventually made clear their ‘moral’ disapproval of the Israeli military campaign, they fail explicitly to name Israeli actions as violations of international humanitarian law and war crimes.

At this point there can be no doubt on the matter. As early as late October, a public letter from British lawyers to the UK government – now signed by 1100 – made clear that, even then, there was ample evidence of multiple specific violations of many international laws by the Israeli state. Months later, the extent and severity of these violations has expanded enormously. In January, the International Court of Justice delivered the extraordinary ruling that Israeli actions were ‘plausibly genocidal’, ordering Israel urgently to take all measures to prevent that outcome (which it has ignored).

The horrifying scale of deaths and injuries has been amply reported, resulting from recklessly disproportionate and indiscriminate Israeli bombardments. Almost all Gazan hospitals are destroyed or dysfunctional. 80% of the population has been displaced and are barely surviving in catastrophically inhumane conditions while still under military assault. Well over 50% of buildings in Gaza have been damaged or flattened, meaning most Gazans will have nowhere to return when the fighting stops. 90% of educational institutions, numerous churches and mosques and irreplaceable cultural sites have been damaged or destroyed, and much agricultural land has been rendered useless. Many Gazans now face starvation due to continuing drastic Israeli restrictions on the supply of humanitarian aid – another war crime – and official bodies have reported that children are already dying as a result.

None of this can remotely be justified under Israel’s ‘right to defend itself’, a phrase repeatedly but uncritically invoked by the bishops. As Francesca Albanese, UN special rapporteur for the West Bank and Gaza, observes, a state cannot invoke this right against a territory that it is belligerently occupying. Israel is not bound by some iron necessity to inflict this level of devastating collective punishment on defenceless Gazans. International law demands that Israel find other ways to protect its citizens against Hamas and retrieve its hostages.

It is not enough for the bishops merely to express ‘moral’ disapproval of such criminal acts, since this is easily dismissed as a subjective judgment that can be legitimately contested. If what is happening in Gaza is to be truthfully described, these acts must be named as publicly verifiable and culpable breaches of international law.

Second, the bishops’ statements fail to convey anything like an adequate recognition of the larger historical and political context of sustained Israeli oppression of Palestinians, since at least the 1967 illegal occupation. That complex history is, of course, read through radically different lenses. But there is ample verifiable evidence to support the bishops’ issuing a much fuller acknowledgement of the scale, intensity and recent harsh escalation of Israeli state oppression of Palestinians, which the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem in 2021 named as amounting to ‘apartheid’.

The House of Bishops urgently needs to speak more bravely into a calamity in which Britain is itself deeply implicated historically. It will thereby send a much more credible message of Christian solidarity to the people of Gaza who have felt abandoned by many western churches.

*an edited version of a speech in support of Dr Chaplin’s private member’s motion at Ely Diocesan Synod on 9 March 2024, seconded by the Revd James Shakespeare (Rural Dean, Cambridge South). The motion, which was carried narrowly, calls on the House of Bishops to issue a much stronger statement on Gaza that they have so far.
Posted in International Relations, Politics | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

Restarting the Conversation About Equality for Women in the Church of England

by Rev Martine Oborne, Chair of WATCH (Women and the Church), a group that works for gender equality in the Church of England

A couple of years ago I was talking with a bishop about the LLF debates and he sighed and said, ‘Well, at least we’ve sorted women.’ I’ve got to say this is one of the most offensive things a bishop has ever said to me.  I let it go at the time – it was on a zoom call with about 50 other clergy – but I felt angry for everyone in the Church who currently has to accept discrimination against women, even though we believe that it is right and true to the Gospel that women should be treated equally with men.

As the decades go by, now three, since women were ‘allowed’ to be priests, it seems that discrimination has been hard-wired into the Church and even talking about equality for women feels taboo.  We welcome and promote female priests and church leaders but we also welcome and promote those who don’t accept them and their ministries.  And, under the merry banner of ‘mutual flourishing,’ everyone is happy.  But are they?  And perhaps more importantly is this truly the model of the Kingdom proclaimed by Christ?  Are we going to live with discrimination against women in our Church forever?

On Saturday 20 April 2024 Women and the Church (WATCH) is pleased to be sponsoring the Not Equal Yet Conference at St John’s Church Waterloo.

This will be an opportunity for women and men to come together and explore what it means for both women and for the future of our Church, if we choose to continue discriminating against women.

The lead speaker at the Not Equal Yet conference will be the Rt Revd Rose Hudson-Wilkin, Bishop of Dover, who said recently, ‘In 2024, 80 years after the first woman was ordained to the priesthood in the Anglican Communion, women are still having to step aside from many roles and continue to be humiliated by a Church that tells us on a daily basis that our ministry is still “in reception.”’ At General Synod in July last year, speaking of the arrangements made in 2014 to enable women to be bishops on the condition that those who did not accept them were ‘protected,’ she said, ‘The women bishops thing ain’t working – and we are paying the price…’  Bishop Rose also asked in a recent sermon, ‘If God entrusted women to carry the living Word, will he not also entrust us to bring good news to the oppressed?’

Other people, including several who have written for Via Media before (click on their names to read more), will address other aspects of discrimination against women in the Church of England:

  • Revd Canon Prof. Mark Chapman, Vice-Principal of Ripon College Cuddesdon and Professor of the History of Modern Theology at the University of Oxford, will ask whether it is appropriate for the Church of England, as the Established Church with its 26 seats in the House of Lords, to go on discriminating against women.
  • Dr Sharon Jagger, Senior Lecturer in Religion York St. John University, will reference her recent research that shows how lay women are diminished by the arrangements that limit their roles and discourage vocations.
  • Theo Hobson, author and theologian, will ask whether the arrangements limiting women’s ministry in the Church have brought more division than unity – with some clergy, including bishops, not receiving communion from others, including from the Archbishop of Canterbury because he has ordained women.
  • Revd Naomi Nixon, CEO of the Student Christian Movement, will reference the Honest Church Campaign which calls for transparency about the limits that some churches put on women’s roles.
  • Prof. Alex Fry, sociologist at Bournemouth University, will speak about recent published academic research which shows that the theological arguments used to limit women’s ministry are principally ‘system justification’ arguments made by those benefiting from ongoing discrimination.
  • Dr Jeremy Clines, Chaplain, University of Sheffield, will speak about ‘the unseen cost’ of discrimination; how the well-being of women is affected by living and working in an institution that discriminates on the grounds of sex, even if they accept this.

Discrimination has always existed in the Christian Church – despite Christ proclaiming that there should be no first and no last, if we live the way God wants us to live. Arguments have been made from scripture and tradition to support all kinds of discrimination, including apartheid in South Africa and the Klu Klux Klan in the US – which are now seen universally as wrong, including in the Church.

WATCH is a campaign group that wants to see a Church where all people are treated equally and we hope that the conference will free people to start having conversations that question the legitimacy of discrimination against women and to see that it is unjust, untrue to the Christian message and unsafe.

Why does this matter so much?  Aren’t there more important things we should be worrying about?

Women are constantly told there are things which are ‘more important’ than equality for them.  But accepting injustice not only distorts the Gospel, it is damaging.  There are women and girls and men and boys all over the country attending churches that teach either directly or indirectly that women need to be under the authority of men and this needs to be recognised as wrong and frankly dangerous.  It also makes it impossible for the Church to play an authentic role in standing up for much-needed gender justice in other parts of the world.

We hope that the Not Equal Yet Conference will be an important milestone in finally bringing discrimination against women to an end in the Church.

Book your place – in-person or online – through this link.

Posted in Human Sexuality | 1 Comment

The Unbearable Lightness of Being General Synod

by Anon

It was a pretty depressing meeting of General Synod, even by recent standards.  There have now been three expert reports dealing with the harm and trauma caused to safeguarding victims, those who have suffered abuse at the hands of the Church of England’s safeguarding processes, and those falsely accused.

The Jay Review specifically cited those on the receiving end of the “weaponisation of safeguarding”.

The Glasgow Report stated that “actual harm and trauma” had been caused to those left in the lurch by the sudden closure of the ISB.

The Wilkinson Report covered, in forensic detail, how the Secretariat at Lambeth Palace had chosen the day of announcing that closure – 21st June 2023 – as being the cut-off date for trying to prevent Jasvinder Sanghera and Steve Reeves speaking at General Synod. The Report states that “the timing of the termination was affected by the dates of General Synod because the ISB members intended to speak at Synod and to terminate their contracts after they had spoken would be problematic” (565.4).

And the Wilkinson Report went further. There were no risk assessments done: “no risk assessment beyond informal conversations was carried out by or on behalf of the Archbishops’ Council … about the effect of the termination of the ISB contracts on complainants, victims and survivors who were engaged with them, particularly those involved in case reviews” (566.4). Press releases said the victims were contacted and being cared for. Wilkinson found this to be untrue. A lie, in other words. “[W]hen the final decision to terminate the ISB contracts was taken, there was a plan to have a plan to provide interim or transitional arrangements for those case reviews but nothing further was in place” (566.10). “A plan to have a plan” – but no plan.

General Synod were told that Kevin Crompton, the ‘Commissioner’ appointed by the Secretariat, was now looking after victims. The victims issued a statement to say that was another lie.

Three experts on safeguarding, nationally, told the Archbishops’ Council and General Synod that the Church of England lacks the resources, expertise, wisdom and independence (a code for ‘integrity’) to manage safeguarding safely, yet Synod voted to keep hold of the processes it does not understand. This shows little care and attention for victims; indeed, it is reabusive.

Following the February Synod, the whole matter has now been handed over to a ‘Response Group’, a self-appointed group of part-time amateurs, whose agenda is to preserve the privilege that got the church into this mess. This is staggering arrogance. The Lead Bishop for Safeguarding spoke at Synod opposing motions for independence, refusing apologies and denying accountability. Her credibility with victims was zero before Synod began, and now languishes in negative ethical equity, were such a thing possible.

Others appointed to the ‘Response Group’ have misled Synod before. They’ve assured members there are conflicts of interests policies operating. There are not, and Wilkinson highlights that. The claim has been made on Radio 4 that the Archbishops’ Council have all had trauma-training. Where is the evidence that they have? These abusers stay in place, keeping hold of their power and privilege.

Some victims have now requested that those responsible for the harm and trauma caused to them, including the Archbishops’ Council and others leading safeguarding, be subjected to safeguarding complaints themselves.  Good luck with that, as they say. When was the last time anyone senior was held accountable for previous mess-ups, cover-ups or stitch-ups?

The Jay, Wilkinson and Glasgow Reports will be material for the shredder. In the unlikely event of any recommendations surviving, victims can be certain that they will be those that empower the Church, and subjugate the oppressed.

In December 2023, after the ISB had been shut down for modelling “the wrong kind of independence”, the journalist and activist Andrew Graystone wrote a letter to the Church Times:

Whatever recommendations emerge from these reports will have to pass through exactly the same defensive and inept governance structures as have brought the Church to this desperate place.

For years, there has been little evidence of willingness in the Church to change fundamentally. Instead, there is a long history of tinkering at the edges: a new safeguarding post here, a new review there. My greatest fear is that instead of immediately implementing Professor Jay’s proposals, they will be sent out for a typical C of E consultation process — and we will still be debating whether to implement some watered-down version ten years from now.

The reality, as expressed by Ms Wilkinson and experienced by many victims and survivors of abuse, is that hardly anyone in the senior leadership of the Church has a deep understanding of abuse and trauma, and what it takes to help survivors rebuild their lives. Mandatory trauma training is one of her key recommendations. Day after day, I hear from survivors whose trauma is met with bureaucracy.

He continued with this compelling analogy:

It is as if the A and E department of every hospital were staffed entirely by overworked senior managers with no clinical expertise and a heap of other problems to deal with at the same time. All of the survivors I know are exhausted, ground down by navigating the Church’s managerial and adversarial systems. So are the senior leaders. Yet still they project an absolute conviction that they know how to run the hospital better than any outside experts.

This is correctly diagnosed. Pain, brokenness, trauma and profound suffering are met by extremely poor processes and evasive bureaucrats who lack proper expertise and empathy. It is tragic. But also extremely abusive, as victims testify.

Yet General Synod voted for more of the same.  I wonder how many members of General Synod would opt to have an operation in a hospital with the worst reputation in the NHS, and with a high rate of unexplained deaths? A hospital with a reputation for making your illness and injuries even worse, and intensifying your pain and trauma?

None, I expect. Yet Synod voted to have the same people presiding over this safeguarding debacle make recommendations for improvements.  It will end in failure, and more fatalities. Yes, please do remember that people at their wits’ end with Church of England safeguarding processes take their own lives, lose their homes, watch their families implode, and have mental breakdowns.

More recently, Andrew Graystone pointed out that:

Such is the chaos in the Church’s safeguarding structures that not only can the Church not treat survivors with justice and mercy: it doesn’t even have a mechanism to learn from its own failings.

Already, I have been contacted by people alleging that they have been abused in church settings, who have decided not to report their abuse because they have seen how the Church has treated Mr X and others.

We hear that Professor Alexis Jay is going to investigate, issue a report, and then have it debated and implemented. This will take well over a year. This is an emergency, and it requires a well-resourced expertly run emergency response.

And now we have the report, but has it even been properly debated, coming out as it did a couple of days before Synod?

Over £1 million was spent on these reports and on consultants who concluded the Church of England cannot safely deliver such work, and lacks the expertise and resources to do so.

It is just as well that the Post Office is not being run by the Archbishops’ Council, or subject to the oversight of General Synod. Were it so, Paula Vennells would still be in charge, and given another chance to get things right. Alan Bates would be behind bars, and the public would be told that whilst there had been a few errors, and apologies could be considered, the status quo would be maintained.

 

Posted in General Synod, Governance, Safeguarding | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Finding a Way Through: February 2024

by the Revd Dr Charlie Bell, Fellow at Girton College Cambridge, Assistant Curate, St John the Divine, Kennington and a consultant to the LLF Implementation Pastoral Guidance Working Group

Well, there goes another General Synod.

It has been rather a strange year. It feels like a long time since many of us yearning for change thought that we might finally be getting there – or if not ‘there’, exactly, then somewhere along the road from here to there. February 2023 saw the first glimmer of light for LGBTQIA people shine through and yet time after time, Synod after Synod, archepiscopal intervention after archepiscopal intervention, attempted rollback after attempted rollback, backdoor dealing after backdoor dealing, there seems to have been a concerted and rather ill-tempered determination to ensure that any semblance of progress is snatched away from us. It is fascinating that there is a ‘clear will of Synod’ until that clear will isn’t what some people appear to want – again, and again. The mantra of ‘just keep asking the question until you get the right answer’ is beginning to get just a tiny bit tiresome.

So where do we find ourselves after yet another debate?

Well, in the first instance, we find ourselves all pretty sick to the back teeth of the endless meddling of unnamed authorities in the process. It was enormously refreshing to hear the courageous voice of the Bishop of Newcastle make reference to this reality, and it is about time that whoever it is – and we all have our suspicions of the various parties involved – that keep sticking their noses in, trying to subvert the process, however well intentioned, just stop. It is becoming increasingly clear that the LLF Implementation leadership has had too many cooks, some in purple and some in suit and tie, and that the broth is at continual risk of being spoiled. Now is the time to step back – the trust in many in leadership is gone, and others, including the Bishop of Leicester, need to be allowed to get on with the job without endless interference and politicking.

Secondly, there was a welcome change in the nature of the debate and – frankly – the behaviour of many of those involved in it. This might seem somewhat unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but as a gay person looking in, this was the first time that I didn’t feel physically sick, or seething, when hearing some of the speeches. There was the usual casual misrepresentation, and the occasional veering into discussion of ‘issues’ rather than people, but in general this debate did seem – at last – to be veering into decent human conversation. Only time will tell if this continues.

And thirdly, it now seems very clear both where the bounds of the future direction are being drawn, and what that means for the church. Whilst there were howls of disquiet that the idea of ‘cannot agree to disagree’ and the need for ‘legally secure structural provision’ did not garner anything like majority support, nonetheless that is a fact – they did not, and they have not, consistently. What is needed now is a move away from the double-edged sword of ‘victimhood’ and threat that irresponsible organs such as the CEEC have used to date. If you choose to threaten to exclude yourself because you cannot live with disagreement, when there is clear disagreement, and you cling to demands for ‘my way or the highway’, then you are getting awfully close to being a bully. Nobody is forcing you out – you are choosing to exclude yourself because you cannot accept you might be wrong, or the reality – that we simply cannot agree on this. We see your false binary – and we challenge it.

So it really is about time we named this tactic for what it is. ‘Give us X or we won’t stay in the church’ is not a negotiation – it is a bare, naked threat.  When it is done by people who appear dead set on ensuring those of us who want to find some kind of compromise are stopped from doing so, then that threat becomes very malign indeed. It is not the only way – and you, we, all of us, know it.

Which brings us back to Synod. It was a very good thing that the Leicester paper was not voted through, because hidden amongst the concerning hints of rollback was the idea that it was only once ‘conservatives’ got their full structural change that standalone services or clergy marriage might be considered. Synod clearly and unambiguously voted that idea down, and it really is time to put it to bed. ‘Structural provision’ is simply not going to happen, and far too many of those who have been arguing for it have been doing so in bad faith, because the reality is that they wouldn’t accept anything remotely acceptable to the wider church and hence just want to delay, delay, and eventually throw their hands up in the air and say ‘this was all just too hard, let’s not bother’, binning the implementation of Synodical decisions at the same time. The sooner we name that, and move on to genuine, serious, engaged negotiations, the better.

Many of us advocating for change are more than willing to come to the table and have already compromised a great deal, but there needs to be a starting point of good faith, genuine negotiation from those who oppose the Prayers of Love and Faith, and a recognition that it is now beyond time to implement the clear will of Synod, much as the Bishop of Leicester has indicated. Simply shouting ‘legally secure structural provision’ doesn’t, frankly, do the trick, and is getting tiresome. For many – me included – these are questions not just about these prayers, but about a fundamental threat to our ecclesiology. Casting our ecclesiology aside and creating a ‘pure’ church within a church in order to appease those who will never really be appeased is not a good strategy. Suggesting that we can remain in any serious way ‘one church’ whilst having ‘legally secure structural provision’ is a demonstrable nonsense.

So – let’s sit down and work out how we can move forwards. If you are a reasonable conservative who opposes these prayers on theological grounds, we can and want to work with you to enable you to flourish in the same church as us. We want to ensure you have pastoral provision that allows you to feel valued and loved – pastoral provision which, incidentally, has been cruelly withheld from so many LGBTQIA people for years. You do not have to buy into the lie that structural provision, with bishops out of communion with one another, special ordinations, confirmations, theological colleges, pseudo-provinces, and the rest of it, is the only answer – it isn’t, and it’s not going to happen. It just isn’t. We want you to feel supported, and we want to build each other up in the faith – and we can make this happen if we’re willing to put our minds to it, and ignore the extremes.

That’s the challenge, and that’s the direction of travel. There is a way through if we are willing to find it. Let’s learn to be the Church of England again, together.

Posted in Charlie Bell, General Synod, Human Sexuality, Living in Love & Faith, structural differentiation | Tagged , | 9 Comments

Estates Evangelism: Justice on the Margins

Fr Alex Frost, Vicar of St Matthews, Burnley and member of General Synod

At this February General Synod I had hoped to speak in support of Bishop Philip North’s motion on the topic of Estates Evangelism. I didn’t get called to speak, but I didn’t lose heart because everyone who did speak, did so with empathy, kindness and consideration for people living and working on our most troubled estates. I get so much enthusiasm for ministry when I hear people discussing and focussing on a loving gospel response to serve the poor and to call out injustice.

In 2021 I was part of a religious cost-of-living crisis piece for the BBC News. It was viewed by 12 million people, and led to an outpouring of love and affection which has affected my life and my ministry forever, so it’s no surprise that I supported +Philip’s  motion at Synod because, if we don’t do something now, then when will we?

There were other matters of justice, particularly racial justice, discussed at this Synod too. The contributors offered heartfelt stories and inspiring words and there was a huge consensus that calling out injustice should be the heart of what we do as a church. Calling out injustice means discussing many emotive topics and I am reminded that injustice comes in many forms, including colour, race, sexual identity, disability and class.

Returning to Estates Evangelism, St Matthew’s Burnley – where I’m the vicar – serves a number of challenging estates. Through the outstanding support of my colleague and Associate Priest Rev Kat Gregory Witham, we have created a new worshipping community called Fun Church. Fun Church is like Messy Church only the difference is that it does get very very messy, with squabbling, fall-outs, swearing, and tantrums, and that’s just the parents! Rev Kat, with an outstanding team, created this for families, and around 40-50 kids attend on a weekly basis. We heat the huge church, do some crafts, we do some singing and we feed them their tea. We have drop-ins, we offer food support, mental health support, weekends aways, and trips out.

When I was telling somebody this, they were like ‘Brill, that’s amazing, are you an HTB church or are the Church Army involved?’ To which I replied, ‘Outside of the stipends we get nowt, zilch, zero from the Church of England’. All our funding comes from grants or charities and benefactors and fundraising, but the truth is we get nothing from the central Church. In fact the reality is we have to pay £30,000 a year in parish share for the privilege so we are doing our bit to support the Diocese. That’s not a criticism of the Diocese, but of the paralysis that is passed on by the processes placed upon estate churches that bind us to the national strategy to pay parish share.

And so I want to add to the amazing voices at Synod, for the many estate churches that get on with doing what they are doing, with the millstone of money and debt preventing them from doing more. I want to speak up for the churches that refer individuals to Christians Against Poverty but are crippled by their own financial woes and yet carry on to a pathway to oblivion. And I want to speak up for clergy making the best of what sometimes can feel like an impossible situation. I also want to raise a cheer for the clergy who literally can’t cope, for the priests and deacons who are hanging on by a thread. For Ministers and Pastors who risk the sustainability of their own respective ministries, who jeopardise their own wellbeing, because of exhaustion, depression, worry and stress. And I want to give a voice for churches that serve in the most challenging places, who give their time in blood, sweat and tears, who are running churches at a loss but somehow keep going, to serve the most vulnerable places in our society. And to speak up for the families I come into contact with, who are literally picking up and eating the crumbs from under the table.

After the ravages of Covid 19 and after the savage way in which the cost of living crisis has taken away people’s dignity, aspiration and zest for life, I want to ask: if not now, then when, Church of England?

I truly believe that the growth of the Church of England will not come by producing a definition of fornication, or even by blessing same-sex unions; something, by the way, which I fully support. It won’t come in the calling out the wolves from the sheep. It can and it will come only from serving on the margins, by calling out the injustices of social and financial deprivation, and by walking in the footsteps of Jesus in the darkest of places.

Growth will come where ministers are not shackled by carrying the weight of so much expectation with so little resource, but are instead enabled to offer more than soup and a sandwich, a prayer and a blessing. It will come if we can offer a radical distribution of the extraordinary and sometime repulsive wealth that is within the Church of England, wealth that will enable churches and church leaders to challenge injustice. The Church of England needs to fight for an end to foodbanks and to stop celebrating soup kitchens as great bastions of pastoral care; instead giving us the tools to stir, not just soup, but hearts and minds. The church should enable us to make a difference, and should hold those in power accountable to make a cultural change to how we serve the poor in mind, body and spirit.

Churches do make a difference; they offer wonderful Christian witness. But they are so often held back by financial woes and lack of opportunities. I hope and pray that the motion passed at Synod leads to change and makes a difference to how much support is offered to our estates. The motion provides a route map to recovery, a route map to growth: what is important now is we all travel in the same direction.

 

 

 

Posted in General Synod, Human Sexuality, Mental Health, Parish Cuts, Social Justice | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Slouching Towards Synod*

by Helen King, member of General Synod, editor

Usually things start to settle down in the week before General Synod meets. The agenda is out, Questions are submitted and the written answers awaited, and people read through the various papers and start to think about whether they have something they’d like to contribute to the debates.

But, in this particularly troubled Synod, where safeguarding, Living in Love and Faith, and governance are all coming together and overlapping in a disturbing way, nothing feels settled at all. That wasn’t helped this morning by an unexpected letter ‘To all General Synod Members’, from the one remaining LLF Lead Bishop. There is still no sign of anyone having been identified to take over Bishop Helen-Ann Hartley’s role as the ‘inclusive’ Lead Bishop; or perhaps nobody so identified has been willing to take this on.

In the letter, Bishop Martyn Snow assures us that the list of ‘commitments’ being brought by him to Synod are not really the commitments. They are ‘intended as an illustration of the sort of commitments that might form the basis of an agreement’.

Yes, the underlining/bold face combination is in the letter.

We are further asked not to ‘pick apart’ the wording of the commitments, or to discuss whether we agree with the details. It’s not clear what we are allowed to do.

Is that it? Or are any more documents likely to land between now and Friday?

In these circumstances, rather than offer any new reflections, Via Media News is instead offering you a reminder of some of the pieces published already here, and which speak into aspects if our current situation. No.10 of the commitments in GS2346 – commitments which are not really commitments – concerns communion: the search for the ‘highest possible degree’ of communion and the idea of ‘degrees of unity’. Is this about impaired communion? Ah, but we are not supposed to ‘pick apart’ the wording.

So, let’s think about sacraments, and impaired sacraments. On Via Media, back in 2019, we featured a piece on our common baptism, from Bishop David Gillett, picking up cases where a minister had refused to baptise the child of a same-sex couple: ‘Does the Bible really say … that baptism should be withheld from some people?’ David looked at the sorts of “Oh my goodness how do we do this??” practical questions, like how to fill in the register when there are two mothers, or two fathers, and reminding us of Canon B22: No minister shall refuse or, save for the purpose of preparing or instructing the parents or guardians or godparents, delay to baptise any infant within his cure that is brought to the church to be baptized.

He wrote “Meanwhile we are in the ironic situation where baptism, the foundation sacrament within the Church, is open to all whereas lawfully married same sex couples are barred from both a church marriage and the possibility of ordination.”

Last year, Fr Thomas Sharp wrote about breaking, or remaining in, communion, when communion “flows from our baptism”. “To declare then that communion is broken is, simply, to make a fundamental statement too about baptism, that the sacrament, too, has in some way been broken.” He concluded, “I am tempted, when I disagree with them and any number of my fellow members of the Church, to declare us ‘out of communion’, to insult and write them off. But then the Spirit’s voice accuses me: ‘How dare you forsake your baptism?’”

This raises questions around the stated objectives of the Church of England Evangelical Council, as stated in their document ‘Securing evangelical witness’. In the non-geographic dioceses envisaged here, people will be “able to express the view that others in the C of E are preaching a different gospel and are false teachers”; not that we disagree, but that one group of us are false teachers and the others aren’t. One baptism? Apparently not. Sharing communion? It doesn’t sound like it.

Evidence for that comes from another 2019 piece published here, on ‘impaired communion’, where Dr David Ison challenged the January 2019 Letter from Concerned Anglicans in the Oxford Diocese, which took issue with the Oxford Bishops because they were insisting that all could be baptised and could receive communion: the Concerned wrote ‘in supporting the formulation first produced by the Bishops of Lichfield, [your Ad Clerum] Letter makes specific reference to nobody being excluded or discouraged from receiving the sacraments of baptism or the Lord’s Supper” and argued that what they called ‘such indiscriminate participation’ was actually unbiblical because, the Concerned Anglicans observed, ‘the Apostle Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11: 27-29 clearly discourages participation in the Lord’s Supper for those who have not examined themselves.’

So, for some within the wider, and diverse, evangelical constituency, some cannot be baptised, while some cannot accept the invitation to the Lord’s Table if the person presiding there has stated that they will bless people in committed same-sex relationships. This of course already happens – although, I think, less than it did – if the person presiding is female. David responded to all this was that “It’s ironic, and worse, that Paul’s confronting of corporate division and contempt is used by one part of Christ’s body as a stick with which to beat and exclude another part of Christ’s body – when Paul is telling his hearers to take a good look at themselves, not others.” Examining oneself seems rather different from labelling others as automatically excluded.

And that brings us back to the big question: when Christians in the same Church refuse to take communion from, or with, other Christians in that Church: are they still in the same Church, or is that schism?

 

*The title of this blog post is of course a reference to Yeats’ poem, The Second Coming. Make of that what you will.

Posted in Bishop David Gillett, Does the Bible Really Say, Living in Love & Faith, marriage | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Mini-MBA Course for the Talent Pipeline in the Church of England: Safeguarding Strategy

by Anon.

Memorandum

To: Current Participants in the Mini-MBA Talent-Pipeline Learning Community.

From: The Mini-MBA Leadership Development Module Team, Lambeth Palace.

Thank you for your emails following the publication of the outline course on Strategy and Marketing. A number of you have asked for “clarification” on the redacted pages on Safeguarding Strategy. As you know, this was done at the insistence of the Secretariat. However, after taking much careful advice and soundings from Lambeth Palace, Church House and the Secretariat, we have reproduced the questions and answers for you below, which should allay any qualms and concerns you might have.

Please note, there is no definite date for the Safeguarding Strategy Module to be delivered, because its postponement fits within the broader ‘Managing Perpetual Reputational Risk Module’. Assessment for that is ongoing in the Talent-Pipeline Learning Community, and takes place over the course of your entire ministry. You cannot begin the Safeguarding Strategy Module until the Managing Perpetual Reputational Risk Module is completed.

As you will have retired by then, you do also have the choice of opting out at this point, should you wish to do so. Whilst that means you won’t get your PTO, you might have had enough by then in any case. Many bishops just put their slippers on at this juncture, and never go out again. That avoids potential CDMs later, and if you are not going to church anymore, you don’t even have to reply to the summons. We obviously don’t recommend this course of action, but it is an option that a number have taken up!

All that said, we have tried to deal with your questions as follows:

Question One: What is a Safeguarding Complaint?

This is more difficult to answer than you might at first think. For example, a Vicar telling infants at a school assembly that Father Christmas is not real clearly meets the trauma-safeguarding threshold. So would removing soft toys from the creche on the spurious grounds that they were badly manufactured.

On the other hand, a clergyman caught behind the bushes naked from the waist down probably has prostate issues, and was just relieving themselves. Nobody likes to be caught short. The presence of other men in similar states of undress merely shows how common prostate problems are, and also points to council cuts in shutting down the public toilets.

The reason the NST does not have a robust or legally compliant definition of safeguarding is rooted in the theological commitment to reflective practice. So much depends on who you are, where you were, and what you have done (NB: Secretariat – please insert “are alleged to” throughout).

Question Two: If there is a complaint, what happens?

Much depends on what role you have in the CofE.  The Archbishops’ Council does offer a system of fully comprehensive Legal-Comms insurance, but only to a few. Obviously, if you have ever tweeted in favour of Save the Parish, you can only have yourself to blame. Bishops, on the other hand, are automatically covered.

Question Three: What Does the NST Do All Day?

At last, a question about strategy! Well, the NST does NOT investigate complaints. Then again, it will often issue statements that begin, “following a complaint, and an independent investigation by the NST…”. To the uninitiated this looks like a contradiction, but the strategy is to keep these two mutually exclusive statements, ALWAYS, at least two paragraphs apart, and ideally two entirely different Cases apart.

Thus, you could issue a statement saying “after a thorough/preliminary NST investigation by the NST, XXXXX was given a verbal warning”. But you must separate that statement by at least two paragraphs from the sentence that reads “it was not the role of the NST to investigate these matters…”.

Both are true. But put together, we do agree they appear to be confusing. Clearly, the NST does not have the expertise, resources, independence or personnel to investigate complaints. Except of course, when it says it has already done so, which is different.

The NST Director can reassure you that the NST never investigates a case. Then inform you later of the result of the investigation you were just told was not even happening, and so you are now suspended. So much depends on who you are, what you were alleged to have done, and whether you have ever signalled a ‘like’ on Save the Parish tweets.

Investigations aside, the NST has outsourced most things to the NSG and NSSP, and even to 31:8 and the NSPCC. There was some outsourcing to the ISB too, but that all ended badly when the dreaded “I-word” was used far too much – Independent (see question four).

It is not tricky to grasp the nuances of this strategy. But to answer your question, nobody is actually working at the NST anymore, and that has been the case for some time. Staffing is done through AI mannequins, programmed and operated by the Secretariat and run out of Lambeth Palace. (So yes, this technically qualifies as an independent and remote ‘hands off’ operation).

Question Four: When the Church of England Says it has Commissioned or Conducted an “Independent Investigation”, What Does this Mean?

Another laser-like strategy question – thank you, and well done! We have already covered “investigation”. When a Bishop, Archbishop or member of the Secretariat says “independent”, they mean a third party that they chose, set the terms of reference for and pay – all in order to get full value for money in their commissioning of this work.

There is obviously no point in having an investigation or even a trial if you don’t already know what the verdict is going to be that you are working towards. (Secretariat: As you know, verdicts are my prerogative, and I am exempt from any such process, just so we are clear).

If for any reason you think the preferred verdict is likely to be the wrong result, not what you paid for, or likely to be deeply unpopular with a sceptical public, the strategy is to delay publication for a considerable period of time, by which we mean several years. If there are complaints about these delays in publication, there’s no need to worry, as you can commission a separate audit or reviews into why the delays have dragged on and on.

That in itself buys even more time, and of course has to be fed into the original processes. Hopefully (NB: Secretariat – “normally”?) Synod will have all turned over by then, the entire NST staff changed, a flood will have destroyed all the records in the bishop’s basement, the server melted or been subject to some naughty rival denomination launching a cyber-attack, so the whole thing has to start all over again.

Question Five: I Might Have Been One of the Clergy Referred to in Question One, Caught Behind the Bushes with Trousers Around My Ankles. My Court Appearance is Next Month. Should I Be Worried?

(NB: Secretariat – insert “alleged” again, liberally; and redact the name of person, court location and date of appearance, etc). Not really. The legal profession works by establishing Case Law precedent. You may recall some years ago that a Bishop often got lost in places that, on reflection, were he rather less confused and other-worldly, he should probably have avoided on reputational grounds. Public lavatories, bushes in parks, private clubs in Soho and other good places to meet (Ed: seriously?) can sometimes be traps. The bishop was forever getting into unfortunate situations that were “open to misinterpretation”.

On one occasion, the Bishop got lost in a liturgical procession. (NB: Secretariat – date, festival and church redacted). But the bishop turned up later in the vestry wearing only his dressing gown, as he said he’d got confused about timings and location. But this was easily remedied by the following measures.

First, the parish did very, very well in the next round of Strategic Development Fund bids, which considering they’d not even made a submission, was an example of truly amazing grace, with everything that had happened in the procession quietly forgotten. So, win-win!

Second, the Bishop was electronically tagged (voluntarily, and we thank the police for organising this), so that his movements could be GPS tracked by the Legal-Comms Team at Lambeth Palace.

Third, the device as fitted also gave the wearer a nasty electric shock (like a dog collar – not the clergy type, but the canine ones). So if the bishop were more than 20 feet out of sight range of the hired-hand monitoring his movements, a shrill alarm would sound, and the bishop would experience a mild taser sensation.

In view of these hi-tech solutions, you should not really be worried at all. Especially as the Lambeth Palace Team (Secretariat: I have deleted “allegedly” here, as that implies some doubt) monitoring your tag on the day in question now shows that you were not even in that park at all, but on retreat several hundred miles away. So this is either a case of mistaken identity or impersonation. You can therefore plead “not guilty” with a clean conscience. (Ed: you mean like the Secretariat, who when they said they weren’t in the meeting or the room, but actually were…I’m confused…?).

Question Six:  Are You Actually Going to Say Anything About Safeguarding Strategy? Isn’t the Whole Point of this Module to Understand That?

Finally, we get to the heart of the matter! This is tricky for some of those in the Mini-MBA Talent Pipeline to grasp, but strategy is an art.  You’d think that strategy would flow from the many safeguarding ‘Lessons Learned Reviews’, as they would help shape future policy and practice. But you need to remember the following three things.

First, very few ‘Lessons Learned Reviews’ are ever completed. Even fewer are published. And those that are must be subjected to full Maxwell-isation so that no person can be identified, unless it is the one we had previously nominated for throwing under the bus.

Second, remember that zero is a number, and that it is possible, therefore, to talk about “a number of lessons learned”. However, GDPR legislation does not actually require you to specify what the number is. The Chair of the House of Laity was very clear about that at a recent meeting of General Synod. In any case, that number could always increase, so it pays to be circumspect.

Third, never forget that the context of this module is set within the “Talent Pipeline Learning Community”. This is very important for strategy. You cannot speak of “learned” as though this was done and dusted and in the past tense. We are always “learning” (present and future tense), so it really would be pedagogically nonsensical to talk about “lessons learned (in the past)”, as everything learned has to be un-learned, so we can re-learn.

Question Seven: I’ve Heard Quite a Few Bishops, the NST, Secretariat and Others Talk About “the Safeguarding Journey we are all on”. But What Does That Mean in Practice?

We are glad you asked, and we can end this Q&A with a proper old biblical story – the Parable of the Missing Japanese Snow Monkey! As you know, this naughty Snow Monkey went AWOL from Highland Wildlife Park at Kincraig, near Aviemore, in January. It was on the run for five days, before being finally found in some Highlands back garden eating nuts. Like the lost coin, lost sheep, lost pearl or straying prodigal son, there was much rejoicing at the Monkey being recaptured. (NB: Secretariat – “recovered” or “found” sounds better; this modern parable is not supposed to stress the captive nature of the animal).

Now throughout the Monkey’s meanderings, nobody was asking if the animal had a destination or end in mind, or was trying to get home (to Japan!). No, this Monkey was on a journey, and the point of the journey was to keep moving, and follow its nose. The excitement, vision and energy comes from not knowing where this will end from one day to the next. Reaching an actual destination is never the point. Because that would mean to have arrived, have finished something, and to be at completion.

This is not the way of the pilgrim. John Bunyan was right to title his book Pilgrim’s Progress. He didn’t call it Pilgrim’s Arrival, or Pilgrim’s Journey Ends. The clue is in the word ‘progress’ – he keeps going. Like the Snow Monkey.

You may this this is all a bit fruitless, but then so much strategy is about going back to the beginning, and starting all over again (Ed: You mean like LLF?). The Monkey did not have a wasted journey. And our Safeguarding Journey is never wasted either.

All that happens is after some while meandering around, we go back home, and begin to reimagine the next Safeguarding Journey we might embark upon. The aim is to keep moving, and not get overly focussed on where we are supposed to be ending up. Look how that tormented Bunyan!

But it didn’t bother the Monkey one bit, who is glad to be back at the beginning with a banana, and is already planning their next trek. Remember, the Talent Pipeline Learning Community is a non-stop Ferris Wheel. You are not meant to get off.

Assessment:

If you are in favour of Save the Parish, you may answer questions 1-3, but should then proceed straight on to question eight.

  1. On a scale of 1-5, five being the most favourable, how would you rate the oversight of the Secretariat in national safeguarding?
  2. On a scale of 1-5, five being the most favourable, how would you rate the performance of the NST, NSG, NSSP, etc?
  3. On a scale of 1-5, five being the most favourable, how confident are you of a bishop evading a safeguarding complaint?
  4. Using fewer than 10 words, but with diagrams allowed, what lessons were learned in the last review you looked at? If none, write ‘zero’ (which is a number, and might be the right answer)?
  5. The Father Ted Christmas Special episode involving the lost clergy in the lingerie section of Dublin’s leading department store was the set text for critical reflection in our previous module. (NB: Secretariat – the Ignatian reflections from some students were illuminating). Mindful of that critical incident, how could Father Ted’s leadership be up-scaled?
  6. Assuming you have understood this Module correctly, as it was intended to be, write down your next ideal job on completion of the Mini-MBA.
  7. What does the Monkey teach us about the value of the Journey (NB: not a question about destinations!).
  8. If you answered with less than ‘five’ in questions 1-3, where do you think you are actually going to end up?
Posted in Safeguarding, Strategy | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Response to the ‘Letter from Seven Bishops’: A Theology of Inclusion

by Fr Alex Frost, Vicar of St Matthews, Burnley and member of General Synod

After reading the recent document around the Doctrine of Marriage and today’s sequel by seven Church of England Bishops, I wanted to ask myself: Am I, and others like me, wrong in all this? Have I been hoodwinked by a bunch of liberal-minded weirdoes who have all simultaneously jumped on a bandwagon of inclusion? Have I just been swept along in a sea of rainbow-coloured waters with an ever-increasing empathy towards vegetarians and vegans and people who have partners of the same sex? Has this heterosexual, former new romantic, a man married in a registry office, sexually active with a son before marriage, just bought into the narrative of same sex attraction and inclusion for all? Have I been led astray by a plethora of heretical charlatans acting in the inclusive name of Jesus Christ; have I been secretly deceived by leaders of the wrong pack rather than the shepherds of the sheep?

Well, I decided to investigate a little further and started at the Church of England website A place to belong, which opens with an encouraging and opening proclamation: We all want our churches to be places of welcome for all, and indeed we believe that church communities are only whole when they include everyone.

Knowing that not to be true, after some unpleasant placements as a pre-ordination candidate, I decided to look elsewhere as is my academic freedom to do – and just as was the Bishop of Newcastle’s decision to step back from her role as a LLF Lead Bishop. Of course, all the assumptions and points raised by the seven Bishops come from a place of integrity. I don’t for a minute doubt that they believe that what they write is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I understand that they think the biblical texts are true, the word of God, and that if they are the word of God they are to be unquestioned and to be implemented at all times and in all circumstances. I get it, I get it, I get it!

But of course, one of the problems our church has is that we don’t all come to faith at the same time, with the same experiences, with the same blind assurance of literal belief in the Bible that the authors of the recent publication share. Many people turn to faith in times of sadness, uncertainty, disappointment, or hardship. I’m not sure how many new followers of Christ become Christians out of untold joy and happiness in their lives. That’s certainly not been my experience in my nearly 9 years as a man in Holy Orders. I also think people in our society are encouraged to challenge, debate, consider different views of opinion. They just will not accept that, to become part of this or that denomination, this faith or that religion you must sign up to a ‘you must believe this, or you can’t come in’ model, unless of course they have been indoctrinated to literal interpretation of what truth is from a very young age. Which raises a question… Is liberal Christian simply a heretical entry into church from the secular world? Or is it a legitimate gift from God, wanting to use the full talents and gifts of academic thinking beyond the traditional and conservative evangelical narrative?

Where might myself and more conservative thinking theologians share some common ground, then? Maybe in agreeing that many problems in the world are because of people turning away from Christ, or not even knowing Jesus, which is very much the case in many of our secular schools. Maybe we share some common ground in that we both want our relationships to be loving, kind, trustworthy, honest, faithful, and lifelong. Maybe our common ground is that we both love Jesus and his church, and we will do all we can to preserve it and stay together. Maybe our common ground is that we all find it deeply upsetting that now we seem angry and apathetic, like many estranged brothers and sisters and families. Maybe the best theological advice we can give, not only to our Bishops but to one another, is to be kinder, more tolerant and to work towards a ‘settlement’ that recognises difference in the house of God, in the name of God.

Maybe we have to ‘reset’ to a place of unequivocal agreement, that we love one another and that he loves us. Surely the common ground is that we all know what Jesus’ primary commandment was: to love one another, despite evidence I have witnessed to the contrary. But despite those failings our language should and will reflect that commandment, always, because when it doesn’t it steps out of the minimum entry requirement to follow Jesus. For millions of Christians, the words of the Bible are literal, and for millions of Christians they are not, and so we have a square that will never fit the circle. That should not mean condemnation for fellow Christians but, as in the secular world, I do believe a path forward will only be found in a way of compassion and compromise. Glimpsing eternity through a virgin bride or groom, is quite a scary and un-inclusive thought; quite poetic and romantic, but sadly not realistic. Many people can’t live up to the expectation which some theologians set before them. Gay people, certainly gay Christians, can’t conform to the doctrinal narrative laid down before them and nor should they have to. And nor should they be threatened with the assurance of eternal damnation. Many people have turned away from, or ignored, a journey of faith because it appears cruel, mean-hearted, misogynistic, intimidating. Or, even worse, they have first-hand experiences of those things.

I don’t ever want Christians who believe something with integrity and assurance to be made to do something or accept something they don’t want to do. But I also don’t want these people to stop others doing something which they want to do, which they want to do with the utmost, honesty integrity and in good faith. If people think my desire to embrace and celebrate same sex relationships and a fully inclusive agenda comes from a place of heresy, or even from the devil, I can’t convince you otherwise and I’m sorry. But I write in Jesus’ name, as a devout Christian, but from a place of difference. A place that witnesses addiction, death, violence, and torment daily, yet a community still loved by Jesus although he is sadly unknown to many of them. Through our outreach we have become a bit of a haven, to the broken, the lonely and the lost. They have been devoured by the wolves and, somehow, they have landed at our door. Their restoration comes through acknowledgment of their experience and struggles, and there is a building of trust. The boundaries many of them hold are in a place far removed from the ideology of biblical narrative that is set in stone as the one they must adhere to. Their starting point for Christian healing and wellbeing comes from a place of acceptance and they can come as they are. Illiterate, ravaged by life, criminals, destitute, and lost.

It is my view that Christianity will thrive once more in our country when we turn our faces towards the marginalised, by restoring them by a practical theology rather than a doctrinal theology. In restoring others in this way, it is my prayer we may restore ourselves in the process.

 

 

 

 

Posted in Culture and faith, Human Sexuality, Living in Love & Faith, marriage, Social Justice | Tagged , , , | 3 Comments