BY STEPHEN KUHRT
Jimmy Saville and the BBC; Wayne Couzens and Metropolitan Police Force; Paula Vennells and the Post Office.
When stories of abuse or corruption emerge the immediate focus is often on those individuals who’ve directly committed the crimes or wrongdoing. But in almost every case, what is then examined is how the institution they worked within colluded with and facilitated their abuse.
And the tragic reality is that the church in recent times has probably been as bad as any institution in this regard. The Roman Catholic Church used to pick up the entire tab for facilitating abuse in a Christian setting. But the scandals surrounding Peter Ball, Jonathan Fletcher, Mike Pilavachi, John Smyth, David Tudor and several others, have exposed the Church of England’s failures at safeguarding.
Status quo
In each of these scandals, these men were not properly held to account about their behaviour because the status quo suited the institution. They were successful and well-connected. The church has proved itself to be institutionally incapable of challenging their behaviour.
This is why survivors of abuse and whistleblowers about abuse are often treated so badly by the church: because they challenge the status quo. In contrast, abusers, in almost every case, are invested in preserving it. They need to maintain the status quo to continue their lifestyle and it’s therefore not surprising that those equally invested in the status quo such as bishops and other diocesan officers are so reluctant to deal with them.
Cultural change
So, what is needed to change this situation?
It’s not simply better administration. Safeguarding officers, DBS checks, training course and policies have all improved immeasurably in recent years. This is a good thing, but it only makes a tiny contribution to a safer church.
What is most needed in the Church of England is almost wholesale change in culture. At every level, nationally, within dioceses and within parishes as well, the mindset that produces unsafe cultures has got to change.
Uncomfortable reading
Matthew 23 is one of the least read passages in the gospels because it makes such uncomfortable reading. Jesus speaks harshly about religious leaders and it’s very relevant to the cultures which lie behind abuse scandals.
Jesus says of the Scribes and Pharisees:
‘Everything they do is done for people to see…they love the place of honour at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called “Rabbi” by others’.
Prestige and status
When spiritual leadership becomes about prestige and status, backed up by special robes and titles, it couldn’t be further from the nature of God. And this directly creates unsafe cultures. That’s why Jesus says:
“…you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.
The greatest among you will be your servant. For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted’.
Hypocrites
Keep a proper vision of the God revealed in Jesus, and we’ll be a servant-shaped church that is safe because it has the care of people at it centre. Allow status and self-seeking prestige to take its place and we end up with the very opposite. Jesus says:
‘Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.
In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but, on the inside, you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness’.
The church and its leaders must listen to Jesus’ harsh words. They show us what happens when the vision of the servant-hearted God is replaced by self-aggrandisement and the love of status.
Radical truthfulness
The love of titles, flowing robes, fancy dinners, books, microphones, platforms, crowds and outward ‘success’ are the trappings of institutional comfort. When these become entrenched and centre stage, they become the status quo which needs protecting. And this means ignoring or silencing those things which threaten the way things are – including allegations and evidence of wrong-doing.
This is why the church needs to take seriously Jesus’ harsh words and return to the radical truthfulness that he embodies. We need to reject the deceitfulness of ecclesiastical comfort and the pomp of status. In the Church of England, we need to recognise that this is not an issue about ‘one or two bad apples’. The barrel itself is rotten and urgently needs cleansing.
This article originally appeared on the Grace & Truth Blog on Jan 26 2025
Discover more from Safeguarding the Institution
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Safeguarding the Institution 
One thing which the ministry and teaching of Jesus demonstrates is that procedures on their own cannot overcome corruption, hatefulness and self-preservation at the expense of others. I absolutely support Stephen and Jon Kuhrt’s quest to get the church to look in the mirror when it comes to stopping those inside the church from perpetrating abuse. I also want to acknowledge the courage and resilience Stephen has shown personally. The answer is of course to revisit the culture so it is not inward looking. When any organisation looks into its own misdemeanours the prevailing instinct is to protect the organisation – a genuinely independent body is required. We do not want to be in a church that is more concerned about its public profile than the plight of individuals in it. We have to find a way of taking the plank out of our own eye. A great deal of good practice is there but there is a major problem which Stephen’s personal experience illustrates.
There is a further question which is how do you hold a community of faith together when the bonds between people can be disrupted by safeguarding concerns which may or not be substantial? Inevitably in churches people get to know and care for one another – in the event of someone being harmed, that trust has to be broken in order to protect the alleged victim from further mistreatment. Even when there are allegations which when investigated contain no substance there is a very unsettling effect. There are no easy answers but sweeping things under the carpet is not an option.
I believe an appropriate culture can be set by an effective leader properly supported by those who have supporting roles in a parish church or in the hierarchy. I want to suggest that a healthy church culture should include three elements:
1. The core beliefs which define the church (Conviction)
2. The inclusion and acceptance towards those who do not subscribe or accept those beliefs(Humility)
3. A rejection of behaviour and attitudes which harm others, psychologically, physically and sexually.(Respect)
In my opinion too often church leaders have focussed on the first at the expense of the second- the knock on effect has, again in my opinion, been that the third category has been compromised particularly within the church itself.
The church, in theory, opens its arms to everyone, so people with every kind of history can walk through the door. If, however, the culture set by the leadership is clear and based on all three of the above, leaders themselves will have to voice and commit to those expectations. Nothing is foolproof but a new set of aspirations are needed.
Russ P-K
LikeLike