Mark Clavier Well-Tempered Formed for Faithfulness (3): Anglicanism’s Long Retreat from Power
Robert Thompson ViaMedia.News Marriage, Sabbath, Creation and Resurrection: A Response to Martin Davie on Marriage, Creation, and Fulfilment
Andrew Brown Church Times When everything is ‘safeguarding’ no one is safe
Comments were previously disabled on this article. This has now been corrected. Apologies for this glitch.
I can find nothing to agree with in Andrew Brown’s article.
Some of Smyth’s victims were over 18, so the police, in those days, regarded them as potentially consenting adults. They were vulnerable adults, vulnerable because of psychological and spiritual abuse.
Adults in abusive relationships are vulnerable adults.
People in power hierarchies, within the church or in other employment, are vulnerable adults.
Etc.
If you are a vulnerable adult, it is a safeguarding issue.
But that is exactly my point: your definition makes every power relationship a safeguarding issue. This both clashes with the general understanding of “safeguarding” as referring only to those who _cannot_ give consent in the way that competent adults can — and it places everyone in the power of the safeguarders and thus vulnerable to abuse of power from them.
I’m not interested in a general understanding of ‘safeguarding’. I am interested in current legal definitions (which are less tight than I have implied) and I’m interested in what Christians should understand about ‘vulnerable’ from a theological point of view. I consider every unbalanced power relationship potentially creates vulnerability. We see this all the time in the secular world when a bullying boss makes life intolerable, yet resignation is not an option because bills have to be paid. Industrial tribunals are not always an option, particularly in these days of zero hours contracts and fixed contracts rather than employment. Of… Read more »
Is it your view that vulnerability and the need for safeguarding is a permanent element of the human condition, equal in all of us?
i consider all humans to be vulnerable to some extent at some times. But the degree of vulnerability can change dramatically. I am feeling slightly vulnerable right now trying to respond! A Sunday dinner and a glass of wine and I will feel less vulnerable.
The people who really scare me are those who never feel any vulnerability.
I consider most conflicts can be easily resolved naturally with a sorry and no safeguarding processes need to become involved.
It would follow then that there will be some people with significantly less ability than the average to look after themselves and it is this group around which safeguarding systems should concentrate – I would think
Safeguarding systems should operate to keep all people safe from abuse. The alternative is to say abusing children or vulnerable adults is wrong; but it is okay to abuse everybody else.
The problem is the creation, use, and misuse of the word “safeguarding” to the point now where people and organisations are concerned about whether they are “doing safeguarding” well, rather than whether they have systems in place to prevent, or at least minimise, abuse in all its forms; and have systems in place to deal with abuse when it arises.
I think I agree with both yourself and Martin. Of course there are different levels of vulnerability. There are different levels to which abuse affects the abused.
It doesn’t take much to see the level of abuse which can occur in secular organisations, and the devastating effect it can have on individuals, who do not fall under the strict definition of vulnerable. Toxic work environment is common. Toxic family environment is not uncommon. Most of us manage to get on with life and move on, and we can’t expect all bad behaviour to be litigated against. Just the worst.
Andrew Brown is remaking his anti safeguarding point but I am much more persuaded by Michelle Burns in the previous post . There have been good discussions in many previous posts about the need for Safeguarding to be properly defined within the C of E- and independent of course. As matters of accuracy I think Smyth’s victims in the UK counted as minors until they were 21( Lots of us oldies at uni then will remember having to be back in college by 10 unless we had a late pass from our tutor) And I don’t believe the Met Police… Read more »
The age of majority in England was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1969 (Family Reform Act 1969). I celebrated my 21st birthday in 1962 under the ‘old’ regime. So it’s 18 for all of Smyth’s victims.
I believe the male homosexual age of informed consent was 21 until 1994, which might have a bearing on Smyth related things.
i don;t think Smyth had, explicitly, anything to do with homosexuality.
Currently enjoying performance of tannhauser overture by Wagner conducted by Karajan. neither exactly exemplorary humans. but magnificent, and understood the human condition. i love Karajan Bruckner 8th. no, really love it. Almost as much as the Boulez.
“i don’t think Smyth had, explicitly, anything to do with homosexuality.” Seriously? SERIOUSLY? A man obsessed with masturbation engages in parasexual activity exclusively with young men, focussed almost entirely on their buttocks, whom he meets in exclusively male educational settings and/or exclusively male outdoor settings? After he has finished assulting them he cuddles them while naked? Sure, under the definitions of sodomy/buggery/etc prevailing even before 1967 he didn’t commit those specific crimes, because they are defined by penetration. But to argue Smyth’s behaviour is not entirely bound up with homosexuality — presumably his own repressed — is quite the hot… Read more »
i don;t think Smyth had, explicitly, anything to do with homosexuality.
Smyth’s behaviour is not entirely bound up with homosexuality
I find these two statements to be completely compatable.
What is surely incorrect is your implication, that
Smyth’s behaviour was entirely bound up with homosexuality
The subject was the age of majority, not of sexual consent. I don’t think that any comment and speculation about the latter is appropriate or necessary given that John Smyth has long been deceased.
Rowland. With all due respect I do think that debate is appropriate.
It is not unknown for the erotic drive to be linked to all sorts of acts and activities. A linkage to power or pain is not unusual. Whether such linkage is a “normal” human variation, or an unfortunate result of distorted sexual development (such as attending a single sex boarding school), is a matter of academic debate.
I think it is appropriate to explore these questions within a proper academic framework. Hopefully we can make such abuses less likely by seeking to understand the deeper causes.
And I forgot to emphasise that everything I say in this post is as true of straight sex as it is gay.
This is not only a homosexual issue, although the same-sex examples may be more visible in certain parts of Christian culture.
Is it that similar women victims don’t exist, or that they struggle to get their voices heard in the church?
I don’t agree. I try to limit my contributions on TA to factual, and I hope helpful, comment. I deplore unsubstantiated speculation in such personal matters. For better or worse, we have the Makin report. I will nail my colours to the mast by saying that I share some of Andrew Brown’s reservations, but those are based on forensic analysis, not speculation.
Best wishes and no hard feelings in saying this.
I completely agree with you on the subject of speculation. As I’m sure you are well aware, however, within civil procedures, especially where that standard of proof is applied to the determination of allegations laid pursuant to the various procedures for statutory and professional regulation, the question of whether or not particular conduct could more likely than not be considered sexually motivated is a valid one to determine. That requires no factual establishment of the sexual orientation of any party to that conduct, though such may have bearing on likelihood. In the Smyth cases (as indeed some others where none… Read more »
I must respectfully disagree. I think such an approach by ‘outsiders’ having no standing is wrong and worse still when it is mere speculation.
Surely this would only apply if both Smyth and his victim were knowingly consenting to an intentional sexual act, and I suspect that both would have been appalled at such a suggestion (even if we may wonder about some unconscious drive in Smyth’s case).
I can assist you on this point. A document in my Symth ‘archive’ (from an impeccable source) records verbatim the following:
16 May 2005: JS appears in Constitutional Court unsuccessfully opposes the introduction of same-sex marriage in South Africa saying “There is no escaping the fact that in both testaments homosexual acts were condemned in very strong language”
That Smyth was fervently anti-gay in public is classic smokescreen. Another example from same era is the late Cardinal O’Brien who was an outspoken critic of same-sex marriage & all aspects of homosexuality until he was exposed as a gay sexual predator.
Other than under 18s and adults who meet the social care act 2014 definition it is hard to define vulnerabilty. At one end are those who suffer domestic abuse – here it their abuse that defines them as vulnerable. Then we have to recognise that adults can be groomed and abused also – the Mike Pilavachi case is an example where a power imbalance resulted in abuse. We must also consider the question of how to define borders between safeguarding/pastoral issues/HR issues. And don’t forget to add in that where ministers are involved the role of HR issues also poorly… Read more »
Did Jesus find a way through it?
Jesus died – no-one kept him safe at that point of need. Safety is not the only thing that matters. Sometimes we choose to take risks, and sometimes our choices are not as free as we imagine them to be. There is a difference between how we assess our own vulnerabilities and how we “should” deal with the vulnerabilities of others (the responsibility is different). Better theology is essential and Alistair McFadyen’s “Bound to Sin” (Abuse, Holocaust and the Christian Doctrine of Sin) though over 25 years old, is a serious attempt to begin that needs to be revisited. McFadyen… Read more »
Quite. I have, as expected, been jumped on with details, but the general emphasis of Andrew Brown’s article, to undermine safeguarding, is not a direction I fell comfortable with. Maybe he would deny he is undermining safeguarding. Andrew says: your definition makes every power relationship a safeguarding issue. but this is not at all what I am saying. Andrew’s problem is his use of the word ‘every’. I am saying that power relationships have the potential to create an abuse situation for which safeguarding processes may be needed. It is also surely also the case that many safeguarding issues have… Read more »
Again, I find myself agreeing with you. You clearly don’t know what point I’m making. But, if it helps, I am not in fear of safeguarders, a phrase which might suggest I have done something to interest them. My detailed criticisms of the Makin report are all on Substack, if anyone is interested, so I won’t rehearse them here.
Please don’t try to tell me what I know and what I do not know. I never implied you were personally afraid of safe guarders. I know very well what point(s) you were trying to make. When everything is safeguarding, no one is safe. Looking back over the years since the publication of the Makin review, it seems that the only people who can never be accused of abusing their power are the safeguarders. Their decisions are beyond question, and they can never be held responsible for getting their judgements wrong. this seems to start with a strawman. No, not… Read more »
The fulfilment of the Sabbath in Genesis is the sabbath rest when our work on earth is done (it isn’t a 24 hr period!).
The fulfilment of marriage (between male and female) at the resurrection is the marriage between the church and Christ.
Beware the Teachers of the Law!
The naval view of the sabbath is: “Six days shalt thou labour, and on the seventh, holystone the deck & paint the cable”
“it seems that the only people who can never be accused of abusing their power are the safeguarders.” Er.. possibly, which is why the report that was commissioned by the church and carried out by an acknowledged expert suggested a second body to oversee the safeguarders. Now, can anyone tell me where the report is? I would get out more but I have a lot of long grass to cut.
Jay report .i don’t have the link at hand. It was basically ignored.
Long John Saliva, the report…. ‘The future of Church safeguarding’ by Professor Alexis Jay is on the CofE website. It recommends various points, including 2 distinct independent bodies to be set up (pronto)…1) for operational safeguarding and 2) for scrutiny. It is well worth reading, (essential, compulsory reading for Synod members, I’d say!).
Here’s the link.
The Future of Church Safeguarding
I can’t remember the date of publication, and it would be interesting to identify which of the recommendations have been put in place. The report makes very uncomfortable reading. It does talk about ‘weaponising’ of safeguarding, and use of safeguarding processes in situations where it is not appropriate. This is what Andrew Brown was maybe touching on. It is strong on calls for independence. It discusses in some detail the issue about scope of safeguarding v. scope of HR or CDM. There do seem be some bad practices in the intersection. For example, using safeguarding in issues between consenting adults… Read more »
Is it fair to say it has been read and ignored? CoE talks a lot about independent safeguarding, but I don’t think it has set up both (or even either) those bodies.
Correct. It hasn’t.
I did read it: the question is why was it not implemented?
Here
beginneththe start of a long endless discussion, including an analysis of GS procedures.At the root of which lies – because those at the very top of the tree think they’d lose too much if they did/ they don’t need to/ the rest of the corpses would appear as the snow melts so they are past masters at blocking it via the circumlocution office . And unfortunately up till now no one has been able to make them
As observed by a then Bishop Of London; ‘All power tends to corrupt’. So many bishops …so much power. Prof Jay- ‘what does she know?’ General Synod- a powerless nuisance. Did Jesus say anything about the powerless. the vulnerable, …?
It’s shameful enough to make me start to consider my position vis-a-vis my denomination.
Mark Clavier’s article makes a useful distinction between “what happens in Synod” and what happens down at the coalface of civil society where the Church still does valuable work. But why do so many of the sentences about civil society have “Anglicanism” rather than “Christianity” as a subject? The list of important and valuable contributions the church makes at the “parish” level is important – but if I were a URC or Methodist pastor working in the community I might be irritated at the suggestion that “Anglicanism” is making a qualitatively different – and implicitly superior – contribution. When the… Read more »
While I – a Baptist – agree with you, I think we must recognise that Anglicanism has been bound up with power structures, civic life and privilege (at least in England) in ways which Nonconformity largely has not been. It does appear to me that many Anglicans, even here in Wales, where the CinW has been disestablished for over a century, fail to recognise the vastly changed situation which Mark describes. Nevertheless the media even yet tend to go to Anglican leaders for comment on social matters; the excellent work done by the interdenominational (and Church of Scotland) Joint Public… Read more »
Yes, the Church has been bound up with power structures, civil life and privelege in England and it’s high time it stopped. Requests for comments on social matters should be referred to the interdenominational team you mention. Time for some contrition? And some humility. Debates on “how can we become important again?” should stop forthwith.
Yes, although the interdenominational team only includes Baptist, Methodist, URC and CofS.
ah – thanks. I didn’t know that. Has the C of E excluded itself or was it never invited?
As far as I know, it was set up as a Nonconformist thing – each of the denominations (except perhaps the CofS) probably felt that they didn’t have the resources to do the work alone. But I don’t know the history. See: https://jpit.uk
I am not fully persuaded by Robert Thompson’s argument concerning the development of morality and life in the post-mortem world or in the Messianic Age. I don’t see how this affects us now while we are still in the Age that Exists. Changes that can occur then are not to be expected to occur now. Are we to say that the progress towards the Age to Come is happening gradually and that we are to make gradual changes in our morality accordingly? Perhaps, but it may be difficult to see this progress at work. However, there must surely be caution… Read more »
“Are we to say that the progress towards the Age to Come is happening gradually and that we are to make gradual changes in our morality accordingly?” If this question seeks to imply that we have NOT made gradual changes in our “morality” during the course of Creation it is extraordinary! There have been far-reaching changes to marriage, which was once, as Diarmaid MacCulloch demonstrates in “Lower than the Angels”, almost exclusively a contract between men. And the Church, in my own lifetime, has changed its mind about marriage. Kierkegaard noted that life must be lived forward but can only… Read more »
There have certainly been changes, no doubt many justified in many ways. But the question was whether among these ways is the approach of the Messianic Age. Unless that glorious time is at hand Jesus’ remark about the supersession of marriage do not help us with our problems here and now. Not that those Gospel words are the easiest to understand
How widespread in the Anglican Church is this “Messianic Age” eschatology?
I considered that it was a central element in Robert Thompson’s argument, and thought it unconvincing. If God has established heterosexual marriage as the immutable norm for everyone since Creation (not my personal view) then we have to live with that for now. Jesus has said that the Children of the Blest after resurrection, or perhaps after his second coming, will not be given in marriage but I don’t see how that affects our situation here and now, since the great change of the times has not happened yet
I don’t have much of a sense of how widespread this idea is. Perhaps it seems that world after the Day of his Coming is not much discussed. So I might think