Bullying Institutions and the Church: Some Remarks

Canon Theologian, Convocation of Episcopal Churches, Europ​e.

Photo by Ross Findon on Unsplash

Generally speaking, the British people love their institutions. According to one recent poll, the National Health Service is the most trusted. It won’t surprise many to know that major banks, corporations and political parties are at the other end of the league table, scoring low on trust and respect. What would, however, come as something of a shock is to discover the Church of England and the Post Office hovering precariously in the relegation zone? How is it that two such great and venerable institutions should find themselves in this position?

Of course, it depends which bit of the Post Office and Church of England one is referring to. Local churches, like local Post Offices, are usually cherished and well-supported by their communities, especially in rural areas. The sub-post master, mistress or officer provides an integral service to the local community. Lose your Post Office, and people will often complain that the heart has been ripped out of the community. It is hardly that different with local clergy and churches.

Not so very long ago, Archbishop Rowan Williams appeared on BBC Radio 4’s Desert Island Discs. One of the tracks he chose for his virtual exile was the low, warm sound of villagers chatting in the queue at a local Welsh Post Office. One might go further here, and say that the low, warm sound of a cuppa with the congregation after a service is akin to the Post Office at prayer. There is a sacred quality in being together, gathering our news, being kind to one another, and waiting.

So the mistrust in the Post Office and the Church of England is not at this, highly-cherished local level. The grim poll that sees these two venerable institutions performing so badly refers to the executives, CEOs and church leaders. It is these folk, alas, who are mistrusted, not believed, and whose words and assurances are suspected of being disingenuous. Or, even outright fibs and lies. But, how did we arrive at this situation, and in what sense is this a form of institutional abuse that might perpetrate bullying, neglect and even cruelty? Or the lack of basic rights for its employees, and seemingly set against the most basic ‘Nolan Principles’ for conduct in public life, including transparency, accountability, honesty and integrity?[1]

Many British people are quietly proud of the fact that the United Kingdom has no written constitution. On the face of it, this presumes that common law and human rights are so obvious to the British people that they literally do not need spelling out. There has been no slavery in England for over a 1,000 years, after all. Everybody has access to education, healthcare and social services. So what could a written constitution add to this, given that these universals had already been granted?

The lack of a written constitution does prompt a certain degree of national naivety and smugness. But the 19^th, 20^th and 21^st centuries tested such presumptions. Are all citizens given equal rights (e.g., on the basis of class, ethnicity, dis-ability, gender or sexuality)? It has taken awhile, as movements for universal suffrage had to toil for hundreds of years to overturn the assumption that only property-owning males could vote in parliamentary elections. The legislation to end discrimination in the workplace and in civic life is relatively recent. Brexit and EU court of HR.

There is no doubt that in the past the institution of the British state has been abusive and bullying towards its own people. Just think of the suffragettes, the campaigns to legalise homosexuality, and the more recent Windrush scandal. The British Post Office scandal is currently one of the most serious miscarriages of justice in British legal history. The BBC and ITV dramatizations of the recent Post Office scandals raised some intriguing questions for those who had concerns about other noble institutions at the heart of the British establishment.[2]

Between 1999 and 2015 over 900 sub-post masters, mistresses and officers were prosecuted for theft, false accounting and fraud. In fact, the shortfalls at their branches was entirely due to errors of the Post Office‘s Fujitsu Horizon accounting software. This was known by senior executives at the Post Office, yet the prosecutions continued, and a comprehensive cover-up organised to protect the ‘brand’ of the Post Office.

Naturally, had the Church of England rolled out a similar national software package that accounted for the weekly collection plate in its parish churches, and made all clergy use it, then it is certain that all clergy with any alleged cash shortfalls would have been treated in exactly the same way as the local Post Office and staff. There would have then been several hundred of internal church prosecutions led by the Secretariat. The Church of England, like the Post Office, would be the complainant, investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury. There would be no independent fact-finding investigation prior to the defendant being put on trial, and convicted.

No amount of suicides, mental health breakdowns or sickness of sub postmasters or financially ruined staff would cause senior church leaders to pause or change course. The lawyers for the Church, much like those for the Post Office, would be expensive, bullying, aggressive and obstructive. They would regularly halt mediation with defendants, and deliberately delay justice in order to try and break victims. Those accused would be told that any defence they mounted was likely to increase the prosecution costs, for which defendants would be further liable, and therefore lead to a harsher sentence once convicted. The Church would claim their systems were robust. Defendants – poor clergy and no money – would be left in despair.

Were there to be an Independent Inquest, the Church of England would confirm its main priority was always brand loyalty and reputation management. Senior staff would argue that clergy were always complaining, and some “on the take” and “helping themselves to the collection plate”. The Church, if found culpable in its processes, would then only offer a piffling amount of compensation to victims to cover their losses. The Church of England, as the Post Office appears to have done, operates with a guilty-until-proven-innocent outlook. Indeed, the Church of England might be said to be both the modern Tory Party at prayer (hopelessly and viscerally divided on unresolvable issues). And now the Church of England is, organisationally, exactly like the Post Office at prayer.

Somewhere in all this, the Church of England has somehow become quite expert in bullying, especially when it cannot get its way with clergy or congregations. There are legions of testimony where parishes have been forced into multiple-benefice partnerships, seen their local vicarage sold and watched the income disappear into some diocesan HQ black hole that hires more and more advisors and consultants, whilst frontline parish ministry is cut to the bone. (NB: legally, the money from the sale should be returned to the parish). The laity in these churches are used to the bullying and blackmail that is propagated by the hierarchy, telling them that ministry is now their responsibility and calling. Resistance is futile, because it means the church will not get a priest.

Clergy who fall out of favour with their bishop or diocese can also expect no mercy. At best, they might be offered a few months stipend and “an agreed reference”. But if they don’t agree, they’ll not be offered a “safe to receive letter” so cannot work again in ordained ministry. Bullying depends on passive-low resistance to high differentials in power and authority. The Church of England is a paradise for bullies who rise to the ranks of preferment. They can rarely be challenged, and there is no accountability or external professional regulation that victims of bullying abuse can call upon. Should you decide to leave the Church of England because of bullying, the exit-process itself is rigged in favour of the bullies.

Pastoral care might be offered, but not a fair HR process that delivered a change in organisation culture, or the censure of the offending party. The hierarchy will most likely upon some Christian mediation organisation, who may have some expertise in facilitating the exchange of opinions in matters of pastoral dispute. They are often employed by dioceses and bishops to do this when there has been a pastoral breakdown in congregations, or between clergy and the hierarchy. But once you are past that stage, little is to be gained by either party engaging in such exchanges. Clergy and aggrieved laity will testify to this. Pastoral care is not a panacea. It offers a limited range of help and support. Bullies know this, and take advantage by offering it often, when the situation demands a deeper and quite different resolution.

Christian mediation organisations, uniformly, have almost no track-record in reaching financial agreements with the parties who might aggrieved by the way a diocese or bishop has treated clergy. Where they happen, the amounts involved are of a token nature. Most Christian mediation organisations rely on having dioceses and bishops as clients, and this creates a conflict of interest for those organisations, who will hope to be used again by the client, and thus wish to please them. So if a clergyperson has been abused by the diocese or bishop, the method of settlement being sought is seldom one of pastoral mediation which might involve a token amount of compensation offered at the close of the day in question.

Dispute resolution relating to bullying in the church will need clarity – agreed instructions by both parties – on what one was asking of the mediator. The Church of England hierarchy won’t agree to this, naturally, because the offer of pastoral care and mediation is already weaponised. It will not lead to a fair settlement. The mediation process will inherently favour the sponsor, namely the bishop or diocese, who will invariably by the sole instructing party. If the mediation fails to reach a settlement in the church – which it normally does – the bishop and diocese can say that mediation was offered, but the aggrieved party rejected it. Christian mediation organisations collude with the power imbalance.

The current turn toward ecclesial organization and management presses the question as to whether the Church of England is a distinctive, bounded and overtly member-based organization in character, seeking clarity of identity. Or, is an institution? I agree that all institutions need some level of organization. The family unit is the oldest institution in the world, and each will usually be bound together by values, mutual respect, kindred spirit, and the commitment to cherish, care for and love one another despite differences. Institutions quickly unravel when such qualities are absent, as the Church of England knows to its cost. However, the relationships in such bodies are rarely contractual, and instead depend on soft forms of power such as goodwill, voluntary support, trust, careful attention and mindful service.

An Integrity Framework would be a wholly new concept to most English people, but like the Nolan Principles, the Australian National Audit Office has developed an overarching structure for supporting and managing the integrity of institutions. The Australian Integrity Framework arose out of scandals in policing, military service, government – and was latterly applied to the churches in the light of their opacity on sexual abuse cases. The Integrity Framework serves to assist in ethical decision making and risk, fraud and misconduct management.[3] It handles conflicts of interest, vested interests, whistleblowing and corruption, as well as the covering up of incompetence and misconduct. Its enduring focus on promoting integrity as a value that is embedded in our work and culture. independence, honesty, openness, accountability and courage.

The Post Office would have failed the tests set out by the Integrity Framework. The Church of England would fail it too, and doubtless seek legal exemption from such a code too. Consequently, whistleblowers are not protected; victims are re-abused; abuse is covered up; and the status quo maintained. The result is inevitable. Nobody believes that Lambeth Palace, Church House Westminster, Bishops and senior clergy, or the CEO and board of the Post Office have integrity. These two bodies seek to remain aloof from scrutiny and accountability. They fear liability and exposure. Their energies are poured into protecting the brand and safeguarding reputational damage.

A bi-polarity quickly develops. On the one hand, the Post Office and the Church of England leadership promise to deliver modern corporate step-change management. On the other hand, their leaders behave as inscrutable monarchs, above any form of accountability or scrutiny, let alone transparency. [4] That said, the Church of England is a monarchical polity, and so only tinkers with cosmetic reform, which is designed to signal modernisation and relevance. The underlying culture of deference and courtiers remains intact, and in turn this will always resist external scrutiny, independent regulatory accountability and even transparency.[5]

English Anglicanism can often present itself as authentic and pastorally-grounded in local parishes and chaplaincies. But in its national leadership and structures, the Church of England is often revealed to be a form of aloof sacralised mannered-ness, thereby baptising and confirming classism and elitism, and the status quo in social hierarchy. This is also part of the ecclesial DNA-coding of the Church of England. The more the central governance of the church tries to invent new initiatives to address its own numerical anxieties and other neuroses, the more the public back away. It also quickly morphs into soft bullying by a demand-led top-down leadership, who simply see clergy and laity as a means to an end. Theirs.

That said pastoral and liturgical aspects of the Church of England continue to be an important of English collective national treasure. Like Post Offices, and the Posties delivering the letters to each door, the local is what matters. Few want a relationship with their remote delivery depot. Likewise for the Church of England, local levels, parish ministry and chaplaincy continue to be cherished and valued, making appreciable differences to community and civic life. Few want to know about the Diocesan headquarters and its strategic vision. Yet as centralisation increases this leads unavoidably into ever-greater disenchantment and disengagement.

The present state of the Church of England would pose an enormous challenge for the very best estate agent to elicit serious interest in. True, the Church of England is not for sale. But it is constantly on the lookout for long-term and loyal tenants who will take care of the storefront as though they were the owners. Upkeep, appearance, productivity, regional-brand-compliance and purpose are devolved to the local occupiers, who mostly do an extremely good job on very tight budgets. For all their labour, laity and clergy will receive little thanks from their somewhat distant landlords, who are only interested in the productivity and turnover. And public compliance too, unless diversification delivers growth. We now have a situation in which the Church of England’s senior leadership are re-mortgaging the church on a regular basis. In this, they are banking on the past and borrowing from the future to try and resolve their present issues and crises.

As some may know with their own homes, this is risky – and only makes sense if the value of your property goes up. But as the social, moral, spiritual and intellectual capital of the Church of England has collapsed into deep negative equity, there is a risk of default at any point. Bridging loans are unlikely to be extended. Local branches may want to start asking some quite basic questions. Who really owns this business? Whom does it serve, and for what purposes? Who are these people in regional and national Headquarters, telling others how to run things locally, and cutting local support whilst increasing their own?

Because these rules and codes are not written down – remember, Britain has no written constitution – the elite have extensive interests in maintaining a hierarchical social order than is far more dependent on class, hereditary power and the like. English Anglicanism often presents as a kind of sacralisation of mannered-ness, and baptism and confirmation of elitism and social hierarchy. A culture rooted in elite white-male class-based mannered-ness becomes sacralised in ecclesial settings. Mild, slightly aloof and distant forms of engagement are developed as normative, in order to avoid the difficulty of surfacing competing convictions, and the underlying passions, emotions and desires that are baked-in to them. The English, perhaps, until recently, had a broad appreciation for an ecclesial polity that dovetailed with the normative ‘national mood’. Namely, mildness.

As the Church of England continues to lose its status as some national treasure, and instead becomes an agent in need of membership, support and sustenance, the identity of the polity shifts from being that of public service to one of community surcharge. The episcopal and ecclesial leadership find themselves unable to resist the temptations of centralised and bureaucratic oversight, including financial control. In turn, that slowly evolving stance depends on demonstrating competence, trust, accountability, transparency and fairness, and it is at precisely this juncture that the weakness of monarchical models of leadership are at their most exposed and weakest. They have few skills for such work.

The lack of an Integrity Framework for the Church of England means that it will continue to engage in bullying behaviours, obfuscate and evade scrutiny, avoid transparency and accountability, and seek to remain outside normative standards and codes of conduct for public life. The consequences of this will fall upon a never-ending supply of victims seeking justice and reparation. The ultimate end, however, will be the dismantling and death of an institution that was once loved and admired by the public, but can now longer command the trust and respect of its employees and people who once gave their lives to work for it.

In conclusion, the Church of England hierarchy will need to face up to the fact that its power structures favour bullies, and camouflage bullying culture. The lack of accountability and transparency, and with no real HR processes or external professional regulation, mean that anyone achieving high office can do as they please in a context where the church is “a law unto itself”. The bullies control the internal ecclesial systems of justice, and they control who is spared punishment, and who is singled out. This creates a culture of meek compliance in something like a totalitarian regime, which seeks to present and kindly-pastoral persona to the public, whilst treating its clergy as little more than indentured serfs.

Under these conditions, clergy are feeling increasingly oppressed, sullen and demoralised. But giving clergy equality and rights is not in the interests of the hierarchy. Meanwhile, the laity will continue to be treated with contempt. This is partly what enables the cultures of bullying in the Church of England to so easily flourish. Perhaps a revolution might save the day? But I suspect something more Christian is needed: death followed by resurrection.

It is only when we grasp the extent to which bureaucratic ecclesiocracy and episcopal leadership is naturally bullying and killing the church, that we might glimpse something else. But as I say, it may be that the bullying culture will need be left to fulfil itself before we see any possibility of new signs of life and hope.

---

[1] The Committee on Standards in Public Life was established by UK Prime Minister John Major in 1994 to advise on ethical standards of public life. It promotes The Seven Principles of Public Life, also known as the Nolan Principles, named after the first chairman of the committee, Lord Nolan, are: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership. The Seven Principles apply to anyone who works as a public office holder. Despite clergy being public office holders, the Church of England has declined to adopt Nolan Principles

[2] A BBC Radio 4 series about the scandal, The Great Post Office Trial (2020, Whistledown Productions). Mr Bates vs The Post Office was a four-part British television drama series for ITV, written by Gwyneth Hughes, directed by James Strong, and aired in January 2024. Computer Weekly ran over 300 articles on the scandal dating from, 2013. Likewise, The Lawyer criticised the conduct of the Post Office solicitors defending the Post Office. Private Eye ran numerous articles and produces a special report, Justice Lost in the Post. See Nick Wallis, The Great Post Office Scandal, Bath Publishing, 2021.

[3] See https://www.anao.gov.au/work/corporate/anao-integrity-framework-and-report-2022-23; and Seumas Miller, Moral Foundations of Social Institutions (Cambridge University Press, 2010; Carl Dahlström & Victor Lapuente Organizing Leviathan: Politicians, Bureaucrats, and the Making of Good Government (Cambridge University Press, 2017); and on institutional failings, see: https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/uccf-its-time-for-me-to-say-sorry/17095.article and in regard to cover-ups on policing, the military and later in churches, see https://www.apsreview.gov.au/sites/default/files/resources/being-trusted-respected-partner-aps-integrity-framework.pdf and https://transparency.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/NIS_FULL_REPORT_Web.pdf

[4] See the Church Times Leader Comment on Paula Vennells and the Post Office, 12^th January 2024,p. 12: ‘Post Office traumatic stress and disorder’ and Angela Tilby, ‘Church of England should heed lessons of Post Office saga’, Church Times 12^th January 2024, p. 16. It is not as if studies of socio-cultural changes had not predicted this. See Kenneth Thompson, Bureaucracy and Church Reform: The Organizational Response of the Church of England to Social Change, 1800-1965, Oxford University Press, 1970. See also Martyn Percy, ‘It’s not an Organisation: it’s the Body of Christ’, Church Times, 22^nd November 2013, p. 11, and also at: https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2013/22-november/comment/opinion/it-s-not-an-organisation-it-s-the-body-of-christ.

[5] Thus, the composition and discharge of safeguarding policy and practice in the Church of England is unsurprising. In safeguarding, for example, there are no means for addressing incompetence and corruption. Officials are unregulated, unaccountable, unlicensed and often untrained. The processes are unprofessional, unjust, unsafe and untrustworthy. Victims find the processes to be abusive and traumatising, amounting to little more than a self-protection scheme designed to preserve the reputation of the Church. The parallels with failures by the Post Office over the introduction of the Horizon (Fujitsu) accounting system have been noted.