Guarding The Flock Misogyny Is Real, But It Cannot Be Used to Deflect Attention From Safeguarding Failures
Colin Coward Unadulterated Love Thirsty for Hope – LLF and LGBTQIA+ diocesan pastors and chaplains and life in God’s field hospital
Mark Clavier Well-Tempered Formed for Faithfulness (4): When We Lost Our Story
Christopher Landau Church Times Time to review the Church of England’s digital communications
Could I ask the moderators what the thinking was behind including a piece from ‘Guarding the Flock’? I followed the link to the website and nothing about it inspired me with any confidence.
The author of ‘Misogyny is Real, But…’ spoke for me – and, I think, for many others. Thanks to the author for putting the issue so clearly.
Janet I couldn’t agree more.
Ian Paul has written an article about Safeguarding leadership in the COf E and this has been added to Tuesday 3rd’s Opinion piece about David Tudor.
Sadly you have to go looking for it as it is very relevant to this
I have added a comment about that piece to that thread as it misunderstands the role of the President of Tribunals, as does Gavin Drake.
Of your analysis is correct, Peter, and the president of tribunals plays a more than minimal part in determining culpability or innocence, then how much is the complainant included at this stage of the process, can they make representations, and can they appeal if they disagree with the decision?
Ian Paul’s analysis is interesting. However, if oversight of Church of England safeguarding is so inept in serious cases like this one, is that not a very strong case for carrying out all of Alexis Jay’s recommendations in favour of fully independent safeguarding. It is a little bit ironic, then, that Ian himself was a member of the Archbishops’ Council who shut down the Independent Safeguarding Board in such haste that the actual people most involved – the survivors who had trusted the Board and re-opened their trauma for the care and action the Board might provide – were given… Read more »
Quite.
It is so helpful when you join in the discussion on this hidden sister- thank – you .And with regard to the independence of safeguarding, as ever you are quite right. It sounds as though Ian Paul is having a try at being gamekeeper? Interesting politics at play here again when you look at the focus of his ire!
I agree, Janet.
But who is the author, Janet? Have you wondered that? Since the piece had no name attached, I’d never heard of ‘Guarding the Flock’, and I like to know whose voice I’m listening to, I clicked on the link to the website in search of more info. The first thing my eye lit upon was a pic of the lady who owns and runs it (I couldn’t tell whether there is anyone else involved) which I thought at first must be AI generated, so unlifelike was it. After a closer look I think it’s just heavily airbrushed and filtered. Digitally… Read more »
I’m always open to respectful disagreement and genuine discussion about safeguarding practice. It’s how learning and improvement happen. However, this particular comment seems to do three things at once: it questions authorship in a way that implies opacity, raises doubts about credibility based on appearance and the fact that my work is offered through an independent consultancy, and reframes professional and lived safeguarding experience as simply an “unhappy personal experience” rather than recognised expertise. For clarity, I am the author, and my background is firmly within professional church safeguarding, having served as a Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser in London for a… Read more »
I welcome respectful disagreement and genuine discussion about safeguarding practice, that’s how learning and improvement happen. However, this response appears to question authorship in a way that implies opacity, cast doubt based on my appearance and the independent nature of my work, and reframe professional safeguarding experience as simply an “unhappy personal experience,” rather than recognised expertise. For clarity, I am the author and have served as a Diocesan Safeguarding Adviser in London for a number of years. My work is grounded in safeguarding practice and ongoing engagement with clergy and survivors of church abuse. It is also important to… Read more »
A decade ago a friend and I ran a free online magazine. These days I wouldn’t dream of doing it – to manage risk I would want to do it through a limited company. If Guarding the Flock is a company- I haven’t checked- to me that looks like prudence rather than anything sinister.
I found the image of Michelle Burns perfectly lifelike, just a professional photograph. Also I don’t see how the image is of any relevance or importance. Aha – see the photo at the top of the home page is of ???? and the image on the About page is of the author. Another lifelike professional photograph. Possibly others might be confused? is the photo on the home page of an actual vicar, or is it a model? Maybe if it was a photo of a male model we wouldn’t notice – which is maybe the point? Corporate web pages often… Read more »
Maybe in order to avoid potential confusion the home page could have multiple photos?
A fascinating comment about the validity of the views of someone who has endured an unhappy personal experience’- isn’t this how the Church of England normally writes off the views of victims and survivors of abuse within the church? Now being turned upon a dissident ex DSO … ??
I hope your comment was not aimed at me….in which case I have been wildly misunderstood.
I was speaking purely as a web designer in my spare time, and how to communicate clearly.
If a blog web site has a photo of a single person on the home page, it may often be assumed that the photo is of the blogger. If there are multiple different photos, any confusion is avoided.
Absolutely not at you… I taken aback because an earlier contributor sought to dismiss the views of the writer of Guarding the Flock because they had suffered an ‘unhappy personal experience’ – and realised that this must be one of the justifications the powers that are regularly use to ignore the views of victims and survivors.
Thanks – it is sometimes tricky to see who is responding to what in these trails!
Susanna, my choice of words was intended to signal that I’m not taking a view on why the employment relationship between the author of the piece and the Diocese of London broke down. In fairness to her I was looking for an alternative to a phrase like ‘disaffected former employee’ as I have no first hand knowledge of what happened. The author is not a victim or survivor of abuse so far as I am aware; you are conflating two unrelated things. My point is that if you leave an employment, for whatever reason, to set up as a rival… Read more »
I never comment on these pages. But have been here a while. You criticised her appearance, which was inappropriate and unnecessary. You do not know her or her experience, and personal remarks have no place in a discussion about safeguarding or professionalism. Haven’t checked this company out and seeing it as being registered at Companies House – this does not does not make Guarding the Flock a rival to any Diocese. You said yourself that diocesan structures have their own systems. Independent consultancies are common, particularly where experienced professionals recognise failures and gaps in support. Ms Burns has made a… Read more »
Jane, as Emma says Michelle Burns speaks for a lot of people . Her very recent previous article (28th January) talks about truth becoming relative when PR firms (being employed by the Church) control the narrative, and that rang many bells with me as a retired non- church safeguarding professional. Maybe the article would provide you with more background about Guarding the Flock which might help you to see beyond her as just being someone who had an unfortunate personal experience?
I am very aware this is a highly sensitive context in which to attempt this particular conversation. I think Jane is trying to raise an important concern and I do not feel you or Emma are engaging with what she is actually saying and why she is saying it.
David, with the utmost respect – and I can only speak for myself – I was pleased to be able to read Michelle Burns’s article . I do not share Jane’s concern about whether she should have been allowed to say it on TA and am happy to leave that choice to the moderators
Emma, thank you, superb comments.
It often happens to LGBTQ people. When they comment on LGBTQ issue their views are dismissed because they are talking from personal experience and cannot be trusted to be properly objective.
There is an unconscious assumption that true objectivity is the domain of, and coincides with the views of, white straight men.
Simon, it’s part of the same control mechanism which states women are over emotional silly.
And worst of all of course tend to be the Thatcheresque women who try to out – macho the ruling straight white men!
The person behind it has endured an unhappy personal experience! End of.
Is that really saying that victims must never ever be allowed to speak?
Mark Clavier’s comments on the current Anglican approach to history could well be applied to the place of history more generally in the modern world. We no longer have a shared communal story in politics, social structure, science, or any number of other realms.
I’ll think you are right Pat, but that need not be a bad thing.
In the past one single narrative was often imposed on the rest of us by those in power.
Nowadays people are able to tell competing stories, often from the underside of history (to use Philip Sheldrake’s evocative phrase).
The issue is not whether there is one single story or many. The issue is whether those of us with different versions of the story can communicate civilly with each other, and (most importantly) listen to each other.
I think my point is that, even to have the kind of communication you describe, we have to agree, at least, on the basic facts of history–dates, events, personages–and then discuss things like meaning, cultural importance, values, etc.
If we can’t even agree on whether, for instance, the Normans invaded England in 1066, then any discussion of the rest of English history is hopeless.
I take your point Pat.
You cite 1066.
One could argue that on Thinking Anglicans there is much confusion caused when people can’t agree whether the “Doctrine of Marriage” or “Classic Christianity” ever actually existed.
Exactly…or on what the historic “Biblical marriage” actually was (or if there was ever on such thing).
But the one story which we must, perforce, all agree upon, that is, the compulsory metanarrative – is that ‘there is no metanarrative’?
I’m not sure what a “metanarrative” is
It’s an overarching story within which all other stories find their meaning, truth and value.
Like, mirabile dictu, the classic christian assertion that every human story finds its significance in relation to the overarching biblical story of: creation, fall, Israel, Jesus, Church and (ultimately) Consummation in the Heavenly City.
That is, of course, the (or should I say “a”) Christian metanarrative. But does our society as a whole have one, or do most people simply live from day to day? If that’s the case, then our presentation of an overarching story and meaning could be very attractive – or it could seem pointless and irrelevant.
It’s even more basic than that! We can’t agree on whether Genesis happened or even on the virgin birth.
Maybe not on the physical events – but if we can’t agree on forgiveness, atonement, redemption, love and the cross, in my view we have gone outside of the boundaries of what can be called Christian. The older I get, the more the Christian metanarrative seems to be radical and completely misunderstood in the modern era. In the current psycho drama, what if a politician was an old friend of Epstein, had no financial dealings and was not aware of the abuse, Epstein was jailed, and the friend then visited Epstein in jail. During the visit, the friend talked to… Read more »
If I was in agreement on the importance of forgiveness, redemption, love and the cross, and tried to live my life in accordance with the Gospel teachings of Jesus, but could not accept the classic theologies of atonement, would you say I could not be called a Christian.
I think this is my issue with the debate on metanarratives. How do we find a way of holding to our own Christian metanarrative, but find a way to accept that our neighbour might find value in a different Christian metanarrative, and not be challenged by that.
i’m sorry, I am not a theologian, I thought forgiveness, redemption, love and the cross were atonement, but I do understand some have more specific concepts of atonement. Not terribly interested in going down rabbit holes of debating flavours of atonement again – we did that a few weeks ago. Christus victor, substitutionary atonement, reconciliation with God (and our neighbours), penal – they are all facets, and the real issue is how we communicate in the modern world, how we make a meta narrative. But i think if we regard the cross as merely an unfortunate consequence of a cruel… Read more »
I think you are outlining why it is so difficult for Christians to be politicians. In your example a Christian would continue to minister to Epstein but a politician could not be seen with him.
Exactly, I use the Epstein example because it is so much in the news. Any analogies quickly break down. No fan of Lord Longford, but he got a lot of ridicule. We all, as we get older, experience friends or family who get into very serious trouble. Maybe as a result of mental illness, maybe as a result of nurture, maybe they are simply ‘evil’. What behaviour would make one completely cut off contact, and where is this boundary for Christian v. non-Christians? I for example would struggle to maintain contact with family members who murdered other family members. But… Read more »
I had to turn off listening to LBC last night. The presenter kept on talking about a paedophile apologist.
Does not cutting off contact with a paedophile make you a paedophile apologist?
Does visiting somebody convicted of violent crime in prison make you a violent crime apologist?
The secular metanarrative is so far from the Christian one.
[of course we don’t know much about the relationships in these recent cases, but my impression is that they would be damned even if it was a simple Christian reaching out, loving the person but not the sin.]
In an article in the Tablet quite a few years ago, the writer William Dalrymple commented – from a Roman Catholic perspective that European culture as a whole no longer shared the vocabulary of faith, and I’d add to that that by and large it no longer has the grammar and syntax of faith (i.e. the cultural and epistomological structures that make it possible to piece together the language of faith and make it intelligible. That seems to me to be largely the case and the churches in the UK are simply a particular cultural conditioned – and slightly eccentric… Read more »
A big difference being that BCP/Church of England, thinks of England as its home, but the Roman Catholic Church thinks of England as a Mission. A theology of uncertainty and decline facing off against a theology of certainty. No contest.
Maybe, but having worked closely with the RC Diocese of Brentwood over many years, including regularly preaching in Brentwood Cathedral, im not that convinced that this really still holds true. I also used to live in an RC monastery in Rome which was a good deal more liberal than anything ive encountered in the C of E.
AI Overview – Roman Catholic attendance is experiencing a “quiet revival” in England, driven by a significant surge in young adults (18-34) and particularly young men.
I think Mark Clavier is right when he says “The Church’s past is contested…Confidence in historical continuity and the moral authority of tradition has declined, further weakening the imaginative and formative power of Anglican identity.” But I don’t think this is peculiar to the C of E: it’s the same weakening of confidence in our historic identity that our other cultural institutions are suffering. The National Trust, our major galleries and museums, our ancient universities, much of the mainstream media (particularly the BBC) have all become run by the type of people who squirm uncomfortably at Britain’s historic culture, who… Read more »
I’d struggle to accept that Britain’s “historical institutions”, including the Anglican Church were dominated in the past by grammar school boys whereas now they are run by people who have been to private schools. Do you have any data to support that argument? .
I didn’t say they were dominated by grammar school boys, but there was a constant stream of such people working through all our institutions until recently, as they have all gradually come up to retirement, and they gave a better balance. Those that were privately-educated in the past also tended to understand that their role was to repay their debt to society by maintaining and passing on its cultural heritage – what we see now is that many of those who have had a headstart in life feel uncomfortable with our historic identity. Welby was a case in point. I… Read more »