Comments: Abuse survivors respond to safeguarding liturgy resources

The "one size fits all" assumption is quite shocking - maybe not that surprising. The sections of liturgy quoted here seem far to up front and very insensitive, as a survivor of abuse I would feel uncomfortable with them. The church would do much better if it were to address the language it uses around guilt and shame. There should also be a lot more teaching and raising awareness of the often destructive effects of placing the need to forgive at the centre of counselling and pastoral work with those abused. Instead the emphasis should be on healing and, within that, permission to express emotions such as anger at the abuse, its consequences and the lack of justice. I was at a church once where the child protection officer told me she had never met anyone who was abused and felt it must be very rare. I don't think churches are generally very good at dealing with issues like abuse, sex, relationship, emotions, honesty... It's quite a list. I don't attend any more, so not such an issue for me now, but from the sidelines, I'm sometimes still astonished at the snail's pace of change.

Posted by Sue at Friday, 8 June 2018 at 8:49pm BST

One issue, among many others, is entitling anything that is designed for use with survivors a "liturgy of penitence". Too many survivors have been manipulated into feeling that it is their fault and they are bad and guilty. The penitence must be from abusers and from the church which for too long has been blind to the needs of survivors.
Even if we don't mean to the message can be reinforced, subtly or not so subtly and continue the abusive cycle. Lament yes but don't even look as if we are calling the survivor to repent of anything

Posted by Priscilla White at Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 9:52am BST

The Chair of the Liturgical Commission, Bishop Robert Atwell and the Vice-chair, Bishop Richard Frith have confirmed that neither of them was aware of the nature of the claimed involvement of abuse victims in the collation of the material. By Friday, both bishops had still not been appraised of who might have been consulted, or when or how. When they repeat the assertion that survivors were involved, they are relying on what they have been told by the National Safeguarding Team. Bishop Richard further admits that the “apology” that appears in his name and was carried in the Church Times was also written for him by the NST.

The process was entirely (mis)managed by the National Safeguarding Team. It is fair to say that a great many victims don’t trust the NST, and find it hard to take them at their word when the insist they are telling the truth about the way the material was collated.

One wonders how long the House of Bishops will want to go on staking their own reputation, not to mention the welfare of abuse victims, on the dysfunctional NST.

Posted by Andrew Graystone at Saturday, 9 June 2018 at 7:26pm BST

I have now had a response from the Bishop of Exeter, Robert Atwell. Bp Robert chairs the Liturgical Commission and wrote the introduction to 'Towards a Safer Church'.

'The resources that have recently been published were two years in gestation and have been collated from various sources, including the Methodist Church. As a matter of policy, where existing material is published under copyright, the Commission first obtains permission to use it and acknowledges this in its sources. Apart from that, in order to give its publications a high degree of coherence, it does not normally acknowledge or source the contributions of individuals, including members of the Commission.

We were grateful for the input of survivors in collating this material and for helping the Commission to 'get the tone right' as best we could. You will appreciate just what a sensitive area this is. The National Safeguarding Team helped facilitate their engagement. Throughout the process I did not know (and still don't know) the names or backgrounds of those consulted in order to protect their identity. '

I will be responding to Bp. Robert. However, I will note here that I did not ask for the names of people who contributed material to the resources; I asked instead which material was contributed or chosen by survivors. So far that question has not been answered. Surely the Liturgical Commission must have that information? If they haven't, they weren't in a position to claim that survivors had contributed.

Posted by Janet Fife at Sunday, 10 June 2018 at 10:39am BST

I saw the resources before publication and offered comments. I am a survivor of sexual abuse. I am not prepared to say any more because I do not wish to disclose my identity.

Posted by Sarah at Sunday, 10 June 2018 at 6:19pm BST

Dear Sarah. I am deeply sorry to hear that you have been a victim of sexual abuse. Whether recent or long ago it is a terrible experience that should not have happened to you. I hope that you have people who can offer you support and friendship.

There are other survivors and supporters who would gladly offer you support, and you do not need to reveal your identity. If you would like to be put in touch, please make contact with me via Andrew..Graystone1@btinternet.com. Alternatively you could visit the MACSAS website (for survivors of abuse by ministers and clergy) or ask your GP to refer you to an organisation that will help. In any case, please don’t carry this alone.

Posted by Andrew Graystone at Monday, 11 June 2018 at 7:57am BST

Thank you for your concern, Andrew, but I am not carrying this alone and have a good deal of support, including from the Church.

My post wasn’t about me, it was to say that to my certain knowledge at least one survivor - me - read and commented on the resources before publication. I wanted to set the record straight as there seemed to be a growing consensus that the bishops were lying about having consulted survivors before publishing these resources.

Posted by Sarah at Monday, 11 June 2018 at 8:54am BST

This is a classic example of the National Safeguarding Team tail wagging the Liturgical Commission Dog. While the NST is chasing around, trying to justify its existence and 'do something' to counter the growing reputational damage being sustained by the C of E, it creates yet another shambles.

Previous comments on TA have called for Graham Tilby to go. This, surely, is another reason why he should.

Posted by Mike Nolan at Monday, 11 June 2018 at 11:53am BST

Sarah, I'm glad you had a chance to look at and comment. on Towards a Safer Church before publication.

However I would have expected there to be a very wide consultation on such a sensitive subject as this, and it remains a concern that neither MACSAS nor the 2 of the 3 survivors on the NST were consulted. The one who was consulted thought complains that he was quoted out of context and without his permission.

A number of survivors have contacted me to say they are not happy with the resources. We could have done much better than this, and it's a shame the opportunity was missed.

Posted by Janet Fife at Monday, 11 June 2018 at 4:17pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.